# Does Religion Oppress Women?



## Admin (Dec 22, 2009)

*Does Religion Oppress Women?<small>
by NICHOLAS KRISTOF</small>*

<!-- <small>December 20th, 2009</small>--> 					 					  *Sikhism is unique in the history of the world's religions in that it has, from the very outset, and in clear, unambiguous and unequivocal terms , enunciated the equality of men and women. However, this is no reason for us to get smug about it. Sadly, we too have, in our daily practices and through time, succumbed to the less enlightened practices of the majority communities which surround us. Strangely and most distressfully, the modern day masands at the Darbar Sahib in Amritsar do not allow women to do seva in the Harmandar. Some uneducated segments of the community resort to forced marriages of their daughters or even so-called 'honour' killings. Female foeticide too has become the shame in some segments of our community*.


  One of the questions that my co-author and I get most often when we give lectures about our new book, _Half the Sky_, is a variant of: _Is religion the real problem?

_ 
  My own take is that religion has often been part of the problem, but that it also can be part of the solution. I've seen people kill in the name of religion, and I've seen people reject condoms in the name of religion even as a tool for fighting AIDS (which usually means people dying).  

But I've also seen Catholic nuns showing unbelievable courage and compassion in corners of the world where no other aid workers are around, and mission clinics and church-financed schools too numerous to mention. And in Islamic countries, I've seen mullahs who are hypocritical misogynists but also some imams who are leading a push for education and justice.  

In short, I don't think there's any glib answer to the question, but there is no question that religions can be a force for justice and equality that they are now not. This magnificent new speech by Jimmy Carter on this topic makes that point very well. Excerpts:


It is ironic that women are now welcomed into all major 	professions and other positions of authority, but are branded as 	inferior and deprived of the equal right to serve God in positions of 	religious leadership. The plight of abused women is made more 	acceptable by the mandated subservience of women by religious leaders.


The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - 	an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate 	women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the 	latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or 	justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women 	throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the 	Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus 	Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and 	founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper 	and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had 	the courage to challenge these views and set a new course that demands 	equal rights for women and men, girls and boys.


At their most repugnant, the belief that women are inferior human 	beings in the eyes of God gives excuses to the brutal husband who beats 	his wife, the soldier who rapes a woman, the employer who has a lower 	pay scale for women employees, or parents who decide to abort a female 	embryo. It also costs many millions of girls and women control over 	their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair and equal 	access to education, health care, employment, and influence within 	their own communities.


[Courtesy: _The New York Times_]
_December 20, 2009_


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 23, 2009)

> he belief that women are inferior human beings in the eyes of God gives excuses to the brutal husband



I don't think any husband except some Muslim one beat their  wives thinking about god.It is just a Human nature about powerful opressing the weak and sometime the one who tolerate it



> the soldier who rapes a woman



Mass Rapes happened after world war -2 they happen after every war.victorious soldiers
just satsfy their sexual desires and prove their victory over enemy



> the employer who has a lower pay scale for women employees



LOL do employer have god in mind to decide wage scale.Many time they know that women are ready to work at cheap rate so they pay them less.



> parents who decide to abort a female embryo.



Again it is the social conditions not the god that lead to female foeticide


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 23, 2009)

Social realities lead to all abuses against women, not only female foeticide. Abuse of women is rampant in every level of society across many cultures including the economically advanced societies of the world. Humans invent religious dogmas that give permission to abuse women, children, the handicapped, the mentally impaired, the mentally ill, the poor, members of marginalized groups (caste-based or otherwise), animals, the environment, and the list goes on. The rich and the poor abuse any one person or targeted group when permission is given in a culture to do so. Societies invent religious dogmas that empower some to oppress others. The question that has not been asked is, "Why do societies invent religious dogmas that give permission to oppress and abuse?"


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 23, 2009)

> The question that has not been asked is, "Why do societies invent religious dogmas that give permission to oppress and abuse



I think many times people want's to justify their actions what they do through religion.If the opressor  is powerful then it is quite easy for him to do


----------



## Lee (Dec 23, 2009)

Does relgion oppress woman?

No it does not, yet it is used as an excuse for the oppresion of many.   It is very real fact that female oppresion goes on world wide, it is as Narayanjot ji says sociaties that oppress woman, and societies are made up of people, so people oppress woman, heh people oppress other people all over all of the time.

Religoin strives to halt all oppresion, it shows that there is not one single speck of the material universe that is not imbuhed with Godness, and so via this understanding it trys to show us that how we treat each oher, then this is how we treat God.

Some people get it and endevour to make the change in their lives, some people do not, and others still simply do not belive.

Once again as always when I ponder upon this, it merely highlights to me the greatness of God, wow what a place we live in, how many verieties we have, many many souls on their journey, many many ideas and principles, many many many many facets of the divine, wow just wow it blows my head wide open and leaves me with a profound sense of happyness.

Unknowable, unfathemable indeed! Wow Waheguru!


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 23, 2009)

I think women oppress women!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 23, 2009)

Randip Singh said:


> I think women oppress women!



I thought you loved your mother in law.


----------



## Randip Singh (Dec 23, 2009)

Tejwant Singh said:


> I thought you loved your mother in law.




Wow Thats going too far!  Swap the word love for Fear!


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 23, 2009)

Randip Singh said:


> I think women oppress women!



Yes they do!!!!!!!! We buy into this mindset. That is a large part of the reason why the problem goes on for centuries. A book could be written about this aspect of oppression of women alone.


----------



## Sinister (Dec 23, 2009)

*so... as an airplane is about to crash, a female passenger jumps up and announces, “If I’m going to die, I want to die feeling like a woman”*
*She removes all of her clothing and asks, “Is there someone on this plane who is man enough to make me feel like a woman?”*

*A man stands up in the back, removes his shirt and says, “Here, iron this!”*


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 23, 2009)

sinister ji

Maybe we needed to lighten up. But you are on the cusp. Be careful when posting any follow up jokes. Thanks, Narayanjot Kaur


----------



## BhagatSingh (Dec 23, 2009)

Lee said:


> Does relgion oppress woman?


there are a variety of religions you must look at each one and answer that question. I think most do.



> No it does not, yet it is used as an excuse for the oppresion of many.


No it is not used for an excuse. The sincerest of people when told that women are inferior by their God WILL oppress them. 
Here's an example from Quran. I am sure several other religious doctrines do contain similar phrases.
_"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and   because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard   their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear   disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey   you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme. Dawood"_
Wife Beating In Islam


_Binding of Isaac
According to the narration, Abraham sets out *to obey God's command [to kill his own son] without questioning.* After Isaac is bound to an altar, the angel of God stops Abraham at the last minute, at which point Abraham discovers a ram caught in some nearby bushes. Abraham then sacrifices the ram in Isaac's stead._
Now Abraham was the sincerest of believers, yet he would kill his own son when God told him to. 
Binding of Isaac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Now why do you say people use it as an excuse?*




> It is very real fact that female oppresion goes on world wide, it is as Narayanjot ji says sociaties that oppress woman, and societies are made up of people, so people oppress woman, heh people oppress other people all over all of the time.


ya all that happens. But when you have a system where women are inferior EVEN IN THE EYES OF GOD. Its that system(religion) that creates the oppression. The people wouldn't dare disobey the system (religion) because it has been revealed from God.



> Religoin strives to halt all oppresion, it shows that there is not one single speck of the material universe that is not imbuhed with Godness, and so via this understanding it trys to show us that how we treat each oher, then this is how we treat God.


Religion doesn't strive to change. You need change if you're going to get rid of old ideas. It takes reasoning to do that not religion. It takes reasoning to change religion.


----------



## AusDesi (Dec 24, 2009)

Lee said:


> Religoin strives to halt all oppresion



thats rubbish. Religions only strives to halt opression when everyone is part of that religion. By that time there already is a an opressed group in society.


----------



## Tomash (Dec 25, 2009)

Bhagat singh:

Id like to comment to that quoting of Coran. It is the same problem youve told about Abraham. I have read a several pages of philosophical reasoning which interpreted the passage much more lightly then you did. As my friends of ismaili islam told me, that all depends on interpretation. Whence why they dissobey ulamas who oppress poor or they dont fast in ramadan. Look at feminist thinkers in islam, they doupt the translation of Coran and history of hadis itself!

The same i think of oppression of women in other religions and culture. Feminists and gender scientest all will tell you, that patriarchism and oppression are constant features of diverse cultures with same pattern. And most of them will tell you that this doesn concern religion. That is why middle east is changing so rapidly and why sikhism could come from so traditionalist religions as islam and hinduism, with probably very hard patriarchism in that time.


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 25, 2009)

Religions are male dominated, males dominate women.
QED


----------



## BhagatSingh (Dec 25, 2009)

Tomash said:


> Bhagat singh:
> 
> Id like to comment to that quoting of Coran. It is the same problem youve told about Abraham. I have read a several pages of philosophical reasoning which interpreted the passage much more lightly then you did. As my friends of ismaili islam told me, that all depends on interpretation.


Tomash ji
Ismailis and other Islamic Sects aren't considered to be Islamic at all by main stream Islam. Interpretation can only change the meaning so much, and when you have 9 or so top scholars of the religion, translating a single piece of writing, where 99% of it turns out to be the same, then you know that its highly likely to be accurate to the original. I bet those Ismaelis were moderates :whisling:



> Whence why they dissobey ulamas who oppress poor or they dont fast in ramadan. Look at feminist thinkers in islam, they doupt the translation of Coran and history of hadis itself!
> 
> The same i think of oppression of women in other religions and culture. Feminists and gender scientest all will tell you, that patriarchism and oppression are constant features of diverse cultures with same pattern. And most of them will tell you that this doesn concern religion. That is why middle east is changing so rapidly and why sikhism could come from so traditionalist religions as islam and hinduism, with probably very hard patriarchism in that time.


Only the nations that are progressing towards secularism are changing but they're passing through a thick web of ancient ideas, and people so hell bent on imposing them on others. Why do you think they are so late in their development?? The countries around them have progressed SO much! Islam was doing so much better during the middle ages... only through conquest. In today's age you need science (with science comes development medicine, facilities, etc) and that means geting rid of old ideas! Why isn't that happening?
It's the religion to blame... that is fogging up people's view. Remember Quran is supposed to be the VERBATIM word of God. You can't beat that man! God is the ultimate authority!

It's quite clear that men are dominant is almost all cultures. But when you have a religion like that. You cannot expect the women to achieve full status until the religion is changed, or like your Ismaeli friends might put it, "interpreted differently".
Christians did have several reforms, the separation of church and state, and the move towards secularism, which is why the nations are now progressing.


----------



## FiveLovedOnes (Dec 26, 2009)

:happysingh:....That's why Guru Gobind Singh created Khalsa who can crush oppressor who turn powerful somehow......khalsa is the strongest postion.So become khalsa.become strong thru exercises,playing,games,weights,weapons training n make weapons...:yes:....Yup..U need them a lot.."shastaran keh adeen hai raaj"....We r big great force now in millions.Guru has thrown 40 mighty n very hard-trained sikhs to crush big mugal army...N they did it..Victory to guru..:happy:.where r u now....Can't we become strong like those..throw away ur luxury.accept hardship n trainings n u will be strongest....Even big empires will fear u.N so the oppressors.......


----------



## roop singh (Dec 27, 2009)

Guru Fateh,
No religion in unniverse Even that of annimals,birds,oceanic oppress female,till women crosses limit.oppressing women has been critisissed by every religion esspacilly guru amardassji.guru nanak dev ji in asa di var has critisised that because of woman we are in this world.but world respects + power masands had made this rule that woman cannot sing in harmander sahib as masands are born from tree


----------



## FiveLovedOnes (Dec 27, 2009)

Roop Singh........which guru has criticized a woman...It was guru who made this world realize that woman is equal to man...only men who r weak at mind consider women to be any weaker.....No man of any age can alone lift n use heavy gun of mai Bhago displayed at Gurudwara Siri Huzur Sahib as she did.she fought big n long battles with this gun which is size of an artilllery gun....if a woman try to become strong she can overpower a man easily like mai Bhago.Sikhs made her their army's head becoz of her power n excellent battle skills n sher devotion to Siri Guru Gobind Singh Ji maharaj....:happysingh:..............:happy:....btw roop singh..i have never seen anybody born from tree...How come u wrote that power masands r born from tree....really funny.....In fact crazy Roop Singh...U need lot of exercise Sir.....


----------



## dalbirk (Dec 28, 2009)

IMHO , Roop Singh ji & Five Loved Ones are saying same thing .


----------



## otilia (Dec 28, 2009)

The question is about "power".... organized, dogmatic religions .. who are ruled by men.... oppress women.... As I always thought the all institutions, state churches... organized themselves to rule, govern... get power.... so the only thing to avoid oppression is "Education"..... If not the rulers ....of every area empower them based on the ignorance...
:happykaur:


----------



## ballym (Dec 29, 2009)

Power is natural to men. We should try to channelize it so that *** does to result in opressionof women/ children , poor.... ( sorry for categorizing in same group)


----------



## Lee (Dec 29, 2009)

Bhagat ji,

Some very good points.

I think you must ask this question.

If there was no religion would woman be oppresed by man?

The answer must surly be yes.  I have seen Athiest couples where the woman is subserviant to men.  How do we explain that?

I have seen Christian couples where both the man and the woman share a true equal partnership.  How to explain this?

Well I belive I can explian.  Again it is al down to people and mindsets.  We know that even homophopic Christians who quote Levicitus to validate their hatred still eat shelfish.  This shows that religious dogma does not have the great pull that you assume it does.

I think primarily it comes down to misunderstanding such dogma.  I'll go a little close to the rules of the forum here and suggest that any passages in any holy text like the ones you have provided for us comes from mankind and not from God.

The God that I have a perception of is a loving God, a little logic provides the question, why would a loving God seek to have Man put upon Woman?  The answer is a loving God would not.  So then any direction in scripture that seems to run contrary to this is either false, or minsinturpreted.

Most scripture (I think) should not be read literaly, but seen as metaphor.

So to your second question.  I think that perhaps I have half answered it already but, I would say that religion is used as an excuse for female oppression by those who follow blindly without thought as to logics of such 'commands'.

Blind faith is worthless (in my opinion) to not use the God given brain, well that seems a great sin to me.

Yes you are very correct Bhgat ji, it does take reasoning to change religion.  I strongly agree with you here.  Religion will change, of course it will, it must if it is to survive, yet there is an inherent qunadry in this.

How far can a religion change if it is taught that it's written tenants come from God?  Obviously not far, yet I belive in that old maxim 'God does not give you what you want but what you need'.

God has provided us all with many ways to reach for God, and seemingly as the populations ideas and ideals change then up pops another 'prothet' to show us the slightly new direction.  I have no reason to belive that this will not occour over and over and over agian untill we all get the message.


----------



## Lee (Dec 29, 2009)

AusDesi said:


> thats rubbish. Religions only strives to halt opression when everyone is part of that religion. By that time there already is a an opressed group in society.


 

AusDesi Ji,

Umm again a very salient point, not one I agree with though.  Relgion, when we use this word to say something about religion, then what we say must be true of all religion yes?

We know that Sikhi preaches against femal oppresion as well as other oppresions.  So this particular religion strives to halt oppresion even if you are not Sikh.

As to the oppressed, well yes there are all sorts of oppressed people in the world and I say that the vast majority of them suffer not at the hands of relgion nor even relgious ideas, but simply at the hands of their fellow men.


----------



## otilia (Dec 29, 2009)

I belive it´s all about power or empower yourself (as society, individual, institution, church) to dominate others..... it apllies to all he only way to avoid, or escape from them is education, enlightment.... :happykaur:
Otilia


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 29, 2009)

Religion is a well of poison, those that drink deeply from it become sick and their humanity dies, they have become the drones of religious dogma; all believe their dogma is the sole truth, any man woman or child that is outside their perceived version of truth is expendable. 
 Therefore religion oppresses everyone; the more you have of it the more intolerant you become. The poorly educated and the ignorant become very sick; this is why the believers in third world countries are so fanatical and at times barbaric. Education is the antidote.


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 30, 2009)

> Religion is a well of poison, those that drink deeply from it become sick and their humanity dies, they have become the drones of religious dogma; all believe their dogma is the sole truth, any man woman or child that is outside their perceived version of truth is expendable.



All religions are Different their teachings are different.Those categorise Religions as one are no Different from Fanatic muslim to whom all non muslims are kafirs



> Therefore religion oppresses everyone; the more you have of it the more intolerant you become. The poorly educated and the ignorant become very sick; this is why the believers in third world countries are so fanatical and at times barbaric. Education is the antidote.



There are many Religious people who do lot of charity whether it is out of fear or because of Religion.Mother Teresa has so much christianity inside was she most intolerant?



> he poorly educated and the ignorant become very sick; this is why the believers in third world countries are so fanatical and at times barbaric



Majority Of these fanatical are muslims.You don't have courage to use word Muslim that's why you use word religion.Anyway in Third world people are fanatical about their culture and language too.Go to south India and make fun of Hinduism nothing will happen to you,
but then Make fun of Tamil language and Tamilians will tear you apart in pieces even the Atheists one.At Present in India there many Disputes where Religion is nowhere near around
Marathi Hindu Don't want Bihari Hindu to come to Bombay,Telengana Telgu want's to separate fron other Telgu people.So I am sorry to say your propaganda is quite baseless


----------



## Sinister (Dec 30, 2009)

Considering the fact that woman do not make up a significant portion of the Sikh priesthood (pracharak class); How does the asymmetrically male inclined historical literature, the entrenched male institutional hierarchy and the generally accepted philosophical tenents of sikhism act as agents in preventing sexual equality or inhibiting upward social mobility for sikh females in the 21 st<sup> </sup>century?

 
 Do sikh woman have a particular sexual identity that has gained social consciousness to form norms of acceptable social behaviour? How do these internal sex related social pressures inhibit woman from upward social mobility? 

 there is a thesis just itching for a poor chump (in search for a doctorate) to come along and examine it.

 *ponders*

 ahh...to lazy...let someone else do it...male work ethic


----------



## Lee (Dec 30, 2009)

thecoopes said:


> Religion is a well of poison, those that drink deeply from it become sick and their humanity dies, they have become the drones of religious dogma; all believe their dogma is the sole truth, any man woman or child that is outside their perceived version of truth is expendable.
> Therefore religion oppresses everyone; the more you have of it the more intolerant you become. The poorly educated and the ignorant become very sick; this is why the believers in third world countries are so fanatical and at times barbaric. Education is the antidote.





Well that my friend is a massivly generalist statement and for it to be a valid one you need to show that it is true of all religions and all religious people.

Hello I'm Lee, a 41 year old white convert to Sikhi, I am fully human with a love for humanity.  Indeed how can it be otherwise?  My religious dogma teachs me that God resides in all people and so I have no choice but to love all of humanity.  My dogma is but one kernal of the whole truth there, I belive that any religion is a valid one and that the important thing is to love God. In loving God one must attempt to love all, so you see no one is expendable.

I do agree with this one thing though, education is the key for many of societies ills.

So my freind we can see that as I just one man (and belive me there are many that feel the same way as me out there) do not exhibite any of the signs you say make religioin a posionous well, that your proposition must be false.


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 30, 2009)

Why posting in Size 5 font?


----------



## Lee (Dec 30, 2009)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Why posting in Size 5 font?


 

Who me?
It all looks fine my end I can see no differane between posts.


----------



## spnadmin (Dec 30, 2009)

Lee ji

It must be browser preferences then. The default font size is 1 and your post and that of Sinister is showing up as size 5 on my end. I will fix it.


----------



## Admin (Dec 30, 2009)

Narayanjot ji, the default font size is *2*... _*1*_ is very very small... FYI please.


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 30, 2009)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> All religions are Different their teachings are different.Those categorise Religions as one are no Different from Fanatic muslim to whom all non muslims are kafirs.
> 
> 
> True their teachings are different, however their religious insanity is the same. Religion takes away freewill all become part of the religious collective where the individual mind is controlled by the collective, this is why when it goes bad all follow like programmed drones.
> ...


<FONT color=black><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3>

Muslim Muslim Muslim, I don’t understand what your point is?
Hindus murder Christians: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/09/hindu-extremists-murder-christians-in.html<?"urn:
	

Live Long and Prosper "


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 30, 2009)

> Muslim Muslim Muslim, I don’t understand what your point is?



Please Re read your post ,you mentioned third world not India or Orissa.If you will take all third world countries then you will 2 dominant Religions Islam and Christianity.Yes Orissa do have History on attacks on Christians but in Entire India you will find  more people of 1 state Attacking people of other states irrespective of Religions.


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 30, 2009)

Lee said:


> Well that my friend is a massivly generalist statement and for it to be a valid one you need to show that it is true of all religions and all religious people.
> 
> Hello I'm Lee, a 41 year old white convert to Sikhi, I am fully human with a love for humanity. Indeed how can it be otherwise? My religious dogma teachs me that God resides in all people and so I have no choice but to love all of humanity. My dogma is but one kernal of the whole truth there, I belive that any religion is a valid one and that the important thing is to love God. In loving God one must attempt to love all, so you see no one is expendable.
> 
> ...


<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">hi lee, i thought this would put the cat among the pigeons,<?"urn:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




It is a generalisation, however the reason religion is so dangerous is that it is a small step from united community to rampaging mob, especially as those with a religious belief are absolved of sin when butchering their fellow man, as it always is a service to god. 

The vast majority of good people in religion are exactly that, good people in religion.
Unfortunately mankind in general prefers to have people think for them, so if there was no religion they would be part of another collective.

: DEVILS COOK BOOK:
Take one Muslim and add a Sikh plus a Christian stir for a couple of hundred years add the Koran and the Bible then turn up the heat until it boils. Add a spoonful of intolerance and a pinch of hatred then leave to simmer for centuries.

This recipe will serve generations and is guaranteed to poison mankind and kill millions.

It works just as well with all religions and you can vary the ingredients but the results are the same.


fficeffice" /> peace


----------



## ballym (Dec 30, 2009)

Sinister said:


> Considering the fact that woman do not make up a significant portion of the Sikh priesthood (pracharak class); How does the asymmetrically male inclined historical literature, the entrenched male institutional hierarchy and the generally accepted philosophical tenents of sikhism act as agents in preventing sexual equality or inhibiting upward social mobility for sikh females in the 21 st<SUP> </SUP>century?


 Does EQUALITY mean doing every thing a male usually does? We should have female prachark but it is not essential to have in equal numbers.
 Equality means equal respect and value to whatever role a female plays. Our economic system does not put true value to household work, child rearing and other jobs done by women.may be that is the reason why a female is called Durga and given topmost place so that some sense of equality is reached. 
In western world it is partially recognised in a oblique way when a working women needs to pay for child care, husband has to pickup kid from school etc.
 But we must accept that roles for male and female are different . Real need is to give due recognition and value to every person's role in society and economy.
 If male has brute power,he has it. No one can deny it. Can or should women try to be equal in it?
 If women are more compassionate, should males try to be equal?
Why do not men apply heavy make-up?
 A couple is ideal when each fills the gap of other and makes it whole. That is why a male needs a female and a female needs a male. Nature/God has made it so.
 Why are we trying to change that by seeking eye-for -eye equality?
 But the problem is that current value system gives more value to MEN's work and thus becomes the origin of opresssion.
Same goes with children/elders/ poor.


----------



## otilia (Dec 30, 2009)

Unfortunatelly that value system is stablished by men..... 
Otilia:happykaur:


----------



## BhagatSingh (Dec 30, 2009)

> There are many Religious people who do lot of charity whether it is out of fear or because of Religion.Mother Teresa has so much christianity inside was she most intolerant?
> 
> 
> People are good not because of religion, mother Teresa would have been good whether she was a Christian or not.


It turned out she wasn't Christian at all, a very non-religious person.


----------



## Lee (Dec 31, 2009)

thecoopes said:


> <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">hi lee, i thought this would put the cat among the pigeons,<?"urn:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Heh my freind, I can of course see what you mean, I think it wrong to think as you do though.

Mankind has violence very close under the skin, it is offten amongst the very first of tools we use for sorting out our problems.  Anything then that is divisive can be used as an excuse for very bad behaviuor.

Religoin, can yes of course, it can and it does and I fear that may ever be the case, we only need to examine our histories to see that.

Yet so can football, national patriotism, sexual preferance, the colour of the skin, gender, age, pollitics, in fact any idea that has an opposing idea can and does cause us to act and react in violant ways.

Yet we can fix these things.  Here in the 20 or 30 odd years ago, we had a massive footbal violnce problem, now it is much better.

Football has sorted itself out.  They have done it but not tollerating bad behavoiur amongst themselves.  

Religions can do this, indeed I have seem many moderate Muslims condeming the fanatics who kill in thye name of Islam.

Like most things, ideas are simply not to blame, it is how people act and react to these ideas.


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 31, 2009)

BhagatSingh said:


> It turned out she wasn't Christian at all, a very non-religious person.


 
QED


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 31, 2009)

Lee said:


> Heh my freind, I can of course see what you mean, I think it wrong to think as you do though.
> 
> Mankind has violence very close under the skin, it is offten amongst the very first of tools we use for sorting out our problems. Anything then that is divisive can be used as an excuse for very bad behaviuor.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Lee
 <?"urn:fficeffice" />
Man does indeed appear to have a propensity for grouping and as history shows that mass collective can be directed into either good or bad, unfortunately more often bad.

The difference with religion as a group is when it goes bad all natural guilt which could modify their sickening conduct is absolved because they as religiously motivated believe their butchery is an act of righteous service to their god.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 31, 2009)

thecoopes said:


> Hi Lee
> fficeffice" />
> Man does indeed appear to have a propensity for grouping and as history shows that mass collective can be directed into either good or bad, unfortunately more often bad.
> 
> The difference with religion as a group is when it goes bad all natural guilt which could modify their sickening conduct is absolved because they as religiously motivated believe their butchery is an act of righteous service to their god.




Thecoopes,

Guru Fateh.

Sorry to barge in but I felt compelled to comment on your post. It seems you know little or nothing about Sikhi or about Gurbani- The Sikh Scriptures. I would urge you to read. Knowledge is everyone's friend and gets rid of ignorance which breeds hatred and disdain which you seem to have shown in the other thread. That is the reason in your posts under this thread and the other you tend to mix apples and oranges and give a racist tone to your posts which shows how insecure you feel in your own white skin. FYI, English was not the official language of India till the fiendish Brits showed up in Calcutta in the farce of East India Company. 

Tejwant Singh


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 31, 2009)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Thecoopes,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 
They used to say the last refuge of a scoundral is patriotism, it appears that has been replaced with the refuge of racist as an acusation.fficeffice" /><?"urn:<img src=" />

I am baffled why you are trying to attribute to me such an acusation? 


Where have I ever been racist? You on the other hand bring in the issue of colour “White” and Nationality, “Fiendish Brits”!

NB: as the topic was general vis a vis “Religion” not Sikhism, your point in singling out one religion is myopic.


Please don’t ever acuse me of racism, “are you insecure in your brown skin?” Now how does that sound? Not very nice. 

So lets have a sensible discussion without the personal acusations.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 31, 2009)

thecoopes said:


> They used to say the last refuge of a scoundral is patriotism, it appears that has been replaced with the refuge of racist as an acusation.fficeffice" />
> 
> I am baffled why you are trying to attribute to me such an acusation?
> 
> ...




thescoopes,

Thanks for the reply.  Please respond to my following question before you try to mix Sikhi with other religions.

What do you know about Sikhi and how it is similar or different from the Abrahamic religions?

You can call me a fiend if my acts dictate that.. The fact of the matter is and if you know history, you would know why I said fiendish brits. Nothing to feel upset and uptight about the facts of history. One has to learn how to accept the truth and then admit it. Denial takes us no where.It is our worst enemy

Tejwant Singh


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 31, 2009)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Thecoopes,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...


 

Many ex-colonies, most of which are developing or under-developed, now have an automatic advantage over others when communicating internationally. Especially in the case of an emerging country like India.

India has always been a land of diverse cultures, boasting several languages and many dialects. The use of English and a western style of education which were introduced and promoted by the British colonial empire, served to unite north India with Dravidian southern India, becoming the lingua franca of the Indian nationalist movement. Post independence English became embedded in Indian culture.

English provides Indians with a valuable asset when it comes to emigration and performance of transactions within an international system.

“So not everything the British done was bad.”


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 31, 2009)

Tejwant Singh said:


> thescoopes,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. Please respond to my following question before you try to mix Sikhi with other religions.
> 
> ...


 
Your question “What do you know about Sikhism and how it is similar or different from the Abrahamic religions?”fficeffice" /><?"urn:<img src=" />

The term “to know” implies too much as there are over 4,000 religions of which 12 are designated as the major religions. 

An answer to your question depends on what you mean by “Know” if as Muslims say that no one can “Know” Islam unless they have read the Koran in Arabic, then I do not “Know”, if however you accept that the principles of Christianity founded on the cornerstone of Abraham and bought to us through the prophets with Jesus Christ being the fulfilment of the that Abrahamic covenant being my understanding of Christianity, and Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak in the 16<SUP>th</SUP> century thereafter 9 Guru’s followed. Guru Arjan completed the establishment of Amritsar as the capital of the Sikh world, and compiled the first authorised book of Sikh scripture, the Adi Granth.

As to any further dissecting of each religion then the web is a powerful storehouse of knowledge and as this is a web based forum that is a good place for information.

So how does your question relate to the fact that All religions have the propensity to dominate those who are not followers.

We are not discussing here that some religions are very very violent and others less so, but religion as an entity is the poison.

Peace.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 31, 2009)

thecoopes said:


> Your question “What do you know about Sikhism and how it is similar or different from the Abrahamic religions?”fficeffice" />
> 
> The term “to know” implies too much as there are over 4,000 religions of which 12 are designated as the major religions.
> 
> ...



John,

Thanks for the reply however superficial it is. Islam is part and parcel of the Abrahamic religions which also inculde Judaism and Christianity. You can not separate these 3 because the umbilical cord is the same.

Sikhi is not a religion. It is a way of life because it is based on pragmatism, unlike other main religions including the Abrahamic ones which are based on religious dogmas.

This wonderful forum is full of great threads for you to understand Sikhi and have a bit deeper knowledge so you do not mix everything in the same pot out of habit and the superficial knowledge of things. You do injustice to your own intelligence with that.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 31, 2009)

Tejwant Singh said:


> John,
> 
> Thanks for the reply however superficial it is. Islam is part and parcel of the Abrahamic religions which also inculde Judaism and Christianity. You can not separate these 3 because the umbilical cord is the same.
> 
> ...


 
Pleaseee, you never set the question, what do you “know” about is too vague. If you wanted to know whether I knew Judaism, Christianity, and Islam shared a common foundation stone with Abraham then that was the question you should have asked.
 <?"urn:fficeffice" />
So your opinion as to Sikhism not being a religion maybe at odds with the founders of this site.

As to claim it is a way of life and not subject to dogma then you need to remove your 5 articles of faith, as I think they are somewhat dogmatic like the Jewish kappel.

Anyhow It never cesses to amaze me how every religion believes their religion is true because it is not like such and such.

peace 
:happykaur:


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 31, 2009)

thecoopes said:


> Pleaseee, you never set the question, what do you “know” about is too vague. If you wanted to know whether I knew Judaism, Christianity, and Islam shared a common foundation stone with Abraham then that was the question you should have asked.
> fficeffice" />
> So your opinion as to Sikhism not being a religion maybe at odds with the founders of this site.
> 
> ...



John, 

As I said in my post. Knowledge is your best friend. Do not make it your enemy. It is bewildering to me that how parochial minded you are, just like the fanatics in any other religion.

FYI, One does not need to have the 5 articles to be a Sikh. I thought you knew that.

So, have a nice learning journey.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 31, 2009)

Tejwant Singh said:


> John,
> 
> As I said in my post. Knowledge is your best friend. Do not make it your enemy. It is bewildering to me that how parochial minded you are, just like the fanatics in any other religion.
> 
> ...


 
My next door neighbour calls himself a Sikh and has no articles of faith, I think your view is myopic don’t mistake objectivism with criticism. Also do you put yourself above knowledge by implying it is my best friend, I think you also need to drink from that well, and pleaseee stop being so condescending in your replies, stick to fact.   

peace:happysingh:


----------



## thecoopes (Dec 31, 2009)

Tejwant Singh said:


> John,
> 
> As I said in my post. Knowledge is your best friend.
> So, have a nice learning journey.
> ...


 
So I have learnt from you that Sikhism is not a religion, has no dogma, doesn’t need any articles of faith, I think the other 26million Sikh’s around the world must be labouring under a misconception, especially as Sikh’s have had so many legal battles with Western authorities that carrying the kirpan is a religious duty. 
fficeffice" /><?"urn:<img src=" />
Also the fact there are those that feel they need the 5 K’s to be Sikh, and there are those like you who feel you do not, implies that there is within Sikhism different views as to what it actually is to be Sikh.

It is the same in the Christian church, part of the Christian dogma is to preach evangelism, many see themselves as Christian even though they have never preached the gospel! 

We could go on and on but I am sure you must by now get it, anyhow it is, here in England almost 2010.

As with all things the united states will eventually follow, see you in 2010.

Peace.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 31, 2009)

Sadh Sangat,

It is not the question whether a religion oppresses a woman or not as the title of the thread would indicate. It is if we who call ourselves Sikhs get the message from the beautiful Gurbani from the SGGS, our only Guru.

When we sing the beautiful shabad in Asa di Vaar by Guru Nanak," Why talk ill about those who even give birth to the Kings", our upper bodies swing with bliss and ecstasy while sitting cross-legged pretending that we men have gotten the message and accepted it.

The actuality in Sikhi shows it otherwise and exposes our hypocricy.It's time for us men to walk the walk rather than just swing the swing while chanting the Shabad.

The change should start from the top. Let's have a woman as the Jathedarni of the Akal Takhat. Let's have a woman the Head Granthi of the Harmander Sahib the most sacred place of Sikhi and other historical Gurdwaras. Let's have women as sevadarnis inside the square at Harmander Shabib while the woman Head Granthi is doing the chor sitting on the tabia. Let's have women do Keertan at  Harmander Sahib. Let's have women do Seva after midnight.

Once this starts happening then it will trickle down to all walks of life in the Sikhi spectrum.These well deserved steps taken by us men will show the equality that Guru Nanak, the first feminist preached. 

These steps will stop the female infanticide because this will show that women do not have to fight for the rights they were bestowed upon. They do not have to work for the fighting chances of life.They deserve to be there. This will stop honour killings because women will be not treated as mere disposable objects.

It all depends on us men because without the women, we would not exist.

 Let 2010 be the year when we men, walk the walk. Otherwise listening to the beautiful Gurbani about equality and swinging along is nothing but a faux pas.

Happy New Year.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## kds1980 (Dec 31, 2009)

> These steps will stop the female infanticide because this will show that women do not have to fight for the rights they were bestowed upon.



Tejwant ji

Do you really think that these steps will prevent Female foeticide?When Indira gandhi the most powerful women of India was  prime minister then female foeticide started also at the same time Dowry deaths became a norm in urban India.Women are still climbing ladders at top but at Ground level no change is happening.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jan 1, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Tejwant ji
> 
> Do you really think that these steps will prevent Female foeticide?When Indira gandhi the most powerful women of India was  prime minister then female foeticide started also at the same time Dowry deaths became a norm in urban India.Women are still climbing ladders at top but at Ground level no change is happening.



Kanwardeep Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Yes, I do, provided we use the tools bestowed to us in SGGS, our only Guru. 

Pardon my ignorance, but I have no idea what Indira Gandhi has to do with my post. My post is strictly directed to the Sikh men who hold power and do not give the women a fighting chance to  break the domed ceiling.

Indira Gandhi was a ruthless,asexual, give a damn kind of person who wanted to be a king. I use the word asexual because she did not care about anyone no matter what  gender one was from. She was power hungry, Hitler without the whiskers.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 1, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Yes they do!!!!!!!! We buy into this mindset. That is a large part of the reason why the problem goes on for centuries. A book could be written about this aspect of oppression of women alone.



Exactly what I meant!

I think also each sex male and female have to accept their limitation and accept them too. The workings of testosterone and oestrogen on the body do enable us and limit us.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 1, 2010)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Kanwardeep Singh ji,
> 
> Guru Fateh.
> 
> ...



Indira Gandhi is Still the role model for Indian Feminists irrespective of what she did with the sikhs.Congress still promote Priyanka Gandhi as Indira because they know women love Indira.

Anyway My point was women need more support at ground level than at top level.India ,Pakistan,Bangladesh are all countries where women Reached the top most post And USA still is a country where There is no woman President
but condition of women is much better in USA than in India.I don't think in sikhism we need to do show off to make a woman jathedar .If a woman is capable Its O.K. no problem


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jan 1, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Indira Gandhi is Still the role model for Indian Feminists irrespective of what she did with the sikhs.Congress still promote Priyanka Gandhi as Indira because they know women love Indira.
> 
> Anyway My point was women need more support at ground level than at top level.India ,Pakistan,Bangladesh are all countries where women Reached the top most post And USA still is a country where There is no woman President
> but condition of women is much better in USA than in India.I don't think in sikhism *we need to do show off to make a woman jathedar *.If a woman is capable Its O.K. no problem



Kanwardeep Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

I still have no idea what my original post has to do with your responses. Yes, USA is one of many countries where woman has not been on the top political post. That could be one of many measuring sticks. Just research how many women are CEO's in the US and other countries that had women as heads of the states. But that is not the point I was trying to make anyway. You seem quite imaginative to make things up that were not even mentioned in the posts. 

And your claim that ," *we need to do show off to make a woman jathedar "  *shows your own disdain towards women, it seems. I never mentioned that in my post, to the contrary. Show off to whom, how, and why? Does SGGS, our only Guru teach us to do that as you claimed above. What qualifications do women need that they lack and men are born with,  to be the Jathedarnis or Head Granthis? Would you be kind enough to list them for me? Why this macho attitude? 

 My post was based on practicing the tools given to us in SGGS, our only Guru. Your claim is not based on that but the way  you think about women, sad to say.

It is ok to disagree and we do disagree on this matter, but please do not cook things up to make up some kind of point against the women.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Sinister (Jan 1, 2010)

Randip Singh said:


> Exactly what I meant!
> 
> I think also each sex male and female have to accept their limitation and accept them too. The workings of testosterone and oestrogen on the body do enable us and limit us.


 
UGH!! i do not like these types of arguments

Everyone knows their own physical limitations through common sense (although after last night, i would say some learn there limitations a little late in life ).

the discussion should involve a phrase like 'psychological equality'. Where a desirable state for a feminist involves both sexes being viewed as equal agents of intelligeant thought.

accepting limitations only leads to the construction of more limitations, and, sadly, i doubt it redirects us to any useful tasks, but will just stifle imagination. 

The Feminist task is NOT to provide equality amongst the sexes, which agreeably would be impossible, but at least a sembelence of equal oppurtunities...whether it be about education, challenging patriarchal inheritance, career oppurtunities, etc.

and in doing so provide an equal plain where ideas from both sexes combine and are taken with equal regard. (opening up/unlocking talents that have henceforth been oppressed by a social structure.)

and the belief that any group should have enough respect to grant the other equal oppurtunities is not much to ask, by any movement (feminist or human rights movements)


----------



## Sinister (Jan 1, 2010)

ballym said:


> Does EQUALITY mean doing every thing a male usually does? We should have female prachark but it is not essential to have in equal numbers.
> Equality means equal respect and value to whatever role a female plays. Our economic system does not put true value to household work, child rearing and other jobs done by women.may be that is the reason why a female is called Durga and given topmost place so that some sense of equality is reached.
> In western world it is partially recognised in a oblique way when a working women needs to pay for child care, husband has to pickup kid from school etc.
> But we must accept that roles for male and female are different . Real need is to give due recognition and value to every person's role in society and economy.
> ...


 
that is very true and interesting points..but i disagree on some

roles should not stifle oppurtunities because they might hamper innovation or kill the spirit of ingenuity. diversify roles and the outcome, according to a darwinian social model will be positive.(as everyone knows diversity within a species, or in this case, diversity within social roles, leads to higher chances of survival).

the diversification of applicants to specific roles in society is just another step of social evolution

also read post above


----------



## Lee (Jan 4, 2010)

thecoopes said:


> Hi Lee
> fficeffice" /><?"urn:<img src=" />
> Man does indeed appear to have a propensity for grouping and as history shows that mass collective can be directed into either good or bad, unfortunately more often bad.
> 
> The difference with religion as a group is when it goes bad all natural guilt which could modify their sickening conduct is absolved because they as religiously motivated believe their butchery is an act of righteous service to their god.


 

Again yes I agree, we only need to look to our histories to see the validity of this.  But yet again so can that most evil of evils, yep I speak of 'National Patriotism'.

Not that I wish to embrace 'Godwins Law' but we can see that during the second world war with the actions some of the soldiers of Germany performed.
Well no doubt they had the 'Fatherlands' best interest at heartm, but still.  Also consider those experiments done in the late 60's early 70's over in America, you know the ones I mean, the old giving somebody the electric shock ones.

It shows that the vast majority of people will react to authority figures even to the point of performing actions that they would normaly see as imorral.

People say things like you have 'ahh yet but the differance with religion is....'

I say that is quite incorrect, ALL divisive ideas can and have caused violence even unto death.  Religoin is no differant in this way.

Look at so called Honor Killings, that is not religious at all.  And is it this idea of Honor that is to blame?  No sir not at all, it is how people act and react towards this idea.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 4, 2010)

Lee ji,
It seems as if you are agreeing witih TheCoopes ji. Just to clarify... are you?

He says: 


> The difference with religion as a group is when it goes bad all natural guilt which could modify their sickening conduct is absolved becausethey as religiously motivated believe their butchery is an act of* righteous service to their god [ultimate authority].*


You say:


> Also consider those experiments done in the late 60's early 70's over in America, you know the ones I mean, the old giving somebody the electric shock ones. [Studies done by Milgram and recently Zimbardo]
> 
> It shows that the vast majority of people will react to authority figures even to the point of performing actions that they would normaly see as imorral.


Then you ignore God as Ultimate authority and say:


> I say that is quite incorrect, ALL divisive ideas can and have caused violence even unto death. Religoin is no differant in this way.


The way I see it is:
Religion is divisive (like you said "ALL divisive ideas can and have caused violence even unto death.")

Religion is guided by one primary authority figure (and perhaps several secondary authority figures)... and like you said "[the studies] shows that the* vast majority* of people will react to authority figures even to the point of performing actions that they would normaly see as immoral."

Also because following that authority seems *righteous*: "...all natural guilt which could modify their sickening conduct is absolved..." - the coopes


So it seems to me that you both agree, yet you sound as if you are not agreeing.


----------



## Lee (Jan 5, 2010)

Bhagat ji,

Well I do agree that relgion can and has done so and probably will contiune to cause mankind to act and react in violence ways.  Yet I see this argument quite frequntly.

'Religion is the cause of war and violence'

Now I'll not deny this, I will amend it to say that religion(like other divisive ideas) have been used as an exuse to commit violence.  However it is not the idea that cuases such strife it is mankinds reaction to the idea.  Or we are to blame for all violenc, how can you blame an idea, blame instead those who subscribe to the idea.

The differance you see between my position and Coopes, is that he stresses that religion is somehow differant (from other divisive ideas) in that it absolves some guilt as the relgious belive that the actions they perform is sanction by a higher power.

I dismise this as false, and claim instead that ALL divise ideas are open to this.  I then gave several examples of non religious ideas in which bad behaviour has been seen to be sanctioned, and be correct because of a higer authority.

In short it is my standard aregument in the face of the 'religions cause war argument'.  Yes they do but if you want to say this, then you must also admit that it is not the sole divisive idea with such problems attached, and to make a claim otherwise is both false and intectualy dishonest.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 6, 2010)

Lee said:


> Bhagat ji,
> 
> Well I do agree that relgion can and has done so and probably will contiune to cause mankind to act and react in violence ways.  Yet I see this argument quite frequntly.
> 
> ...


Ideas don't cause violence, systems do. Religion is not an idea, its a collection of ideas plus authority that forms a dogmatic system.




> The differance you see between my position and Coopes, is that he stresses that religion is somehow differant (from other divisive ideas) in that it absolves some guilt as the relgious belive that the actions they perform is sanction by a higher power.


... and are percieved to be righteous by the followers... this is important!
 



> I dismise this as false, and claim instead that ALL divise ideas are open to this.  I then gave several examples of non religious ideas in which bad behaviour has been seen to be sanctioned, and be correct because of a higer authority.


Well Nazism is one such system. But the people who enforced it did not think it was righteous (some may have but i doubt the majority ever did), The Milgram study showed that immoral actions were result of the authority. People who participated and went all the way, knew they were doing something wrong!




> In short it is my standard aregument in the face of the 'religions cause war argument'.  Yes they do but if you want to say this, then you must also admit that it is not the sole divisive idea with such problems attached, and to make a claim otherwise is both false and intectualy dishonest.


Well I don't think anyone claims or has claimed here that religion is the only one. (I think "dogmatic systems" instead of "divisive ideas" would be a better phrase)
*But once you have a dogmatic system where the members think it's righteous to carry out the immoral actions then religion is quite unique.* Again other systems where this is true will also be part of the problem.


----------



## Lee (Jan 7, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> Ideas don't cause violence, systems do. Religion is not an idea, its a collection of ideas plus authority that forms a dogmatic system.
> 
> ... and are percieved to be righteous by the followers... this is important!.




I think semantics aside, whether we call religoin an idea or a system(of ideas) is largly irrelevent, we can also use ideal, or principles, whatever. The main thrust of this point is that all ideas are capable of being used as an excuse for bad behaviour.  Yet not all of us misbehave so such ideas cannot be blamed, but how people react towards them.  People are more than capable of NOT erruptinging into violence, so I say blame the violent people not the idea.



BhagatSingh said:


> Well Nazism is one such system. But the people who enforced it did not think it was righteous (some may have but i doubt the majority ever did), The Milgram study showed that immoral actions were result of the authority. People who participated and went all the way, knew they were doing something wrong!




Yes indeed I agree with you here.



BhagatSingh said:


> Well I don't think anyone claims or has claimed here that religion is the only one. (I think "dogmatic systems" instead of "divisive ideas" would be a better phrase)
> *But once you have a dogmatic system where the members think it's righteous to carry out the immoral actions then religion is quite unique.* Again other systems where this is true will also be part of the problem.


 

Again we can use dogmatic systems, yet I think I'll stick with divisive ideas, as we can of course have such ideas without any dogma.

Rigtheousness certianly does not only occour within the religious world.  There are many examples of this, just choose any war for example.

Yes you are correct nobody here has said that it is only religoin that casue war and violence, but you know I've been a 'net head' for about 15 years now, I have engaged in thousands of debates andin my experiace when somebody utters the cry 'religons cause war' or other words that mean the same sort of thing, it is most often beacuse they have a disliek for religion. My basic response is to show them that other things also ilicit these kinds of response.


----------

