Talisman of Mahatma Gandhi – Radical Egalitarianism

“I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?
Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away.”
- One of the last notes left behind by Gandhi in 1948, expressing his deepest social thought.¹

We all have seen and read it at the very first pages of any of our school text books. We have been taught of that amulet so deeply as some Vedic Mantra, Ayat of Quran, Gospel of Bible or words from Guru Granth Sahib. It has been our religion, our mantra, the Mahatma Gandhi’s Talisman.
Have we ever realized its essence? Or have we been indoctrinated of the Gandhi’s talisman through our school text books, obviously authorized by the government boards of education?
Since our school days, Gandhi Ji inspires us all to think before we act, to check our words before we speak them, to control our senses before we see anything. We have been taught, not to see bad, not to say bad nor to do bad. Yet, we have never been allowed to decide what is good or what is bad, for Gandhi ji and most of the enlightened ideal leaders never accepted us to be intelligent enough to decide for our own self whether something is good enough to say, or do or see. We are obviously not entitled to decide for our own self, whether something is good enough to do, we are not enlightened and free enough to realize the narrow difference between good and bad. Hence, we need help to conjecture what is good to do and what should not be done, and Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman obviously is the key to our help.
Gandhi ji says that some act or something is good or aesthetically beautiful only if it is beautiful enough for all.² If whatever you do is good for you only, but it is not good for others, or all, it can not be said good. Majority cannot decide good or bad. The idea of good or bad, is essentially relative. Something can be good for one, but bad for others, and if the majority is authorized to decide what is good, than obviously, the minority is forced to accept it as good, without any option to oppose that. Hence, Gandhi certainly was not exclusively supportive of the Majority rule; obviously, he was not a supporter of enslavement of minority against the majority rule. He was proponent of the freedom and savior of minority against the majority. That is why he supported the idea of organized anarchy

“The State represents violence in a concentrated and organised form. The individual has a soul but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned away from violence to which it owes its very existence”. — Mahatma Gandhi³

Yet, was Mahatma Gandhi supporting the idea of freedom of the individual, the smallest minority, to decide for his self and his pursuit of good and happiness?
Was Mahatma Gandhi an existentialist, individualist, supporter of Individual rights and ability to be free and independent to rule and decide for his own life? Was Mahatma Gandhi a Libertarian? No, he was not, his idea of “organized anarchy” constitute a meaningful government and bureaucracy.
Based on Indian ethos and values, Gandhi added some powerful features for containing consumption and promoting social justice and equity. These are:
1) Village governments in which the village assembly controls resources and decision-making;
2) Decentralised production systems to curb distress migration to urban centres;
3) Self-sustaining local economies providing resilience to regional and global economic turbulence;
4) A low expense clean election system;
5) National governments accountable to local governance as a check against arrogance of the state;
6) Industry as trusteeship of the people, reinvesting in production of goods and services and not indulging in ostentatious consumption; and
7) Religions integrated as a positive force at the grassroots level.⁴
Gandhi was not a Libertarian; rather he was a socialist, a deep rooted supporter of the philosophy of Kant, the very basis of Marxism and Socialism. He was not an Individualist, nor he was supporter of Lockean law of homestead and property rights, he was not capitalist. Yet, he did not want the majority to rule over government and dictate for what is good or what is bad. In a sense, Gandhi was Minarchist, yet was he an Objectivist?
Who if not the majority elected government be the dictator for the individual to learn and act for what is good or beautiful for all?
According to Gandhi ji, materialism was corrupt and despicable thus, he was against the theory of capitalism, which gains its roots from the Lockean principles of Property rights. Gandhi ji also supported Marxism and defined class competition as the evil of society, he was a radical egalitarian and hence he considered the theory of Division of Labour as a poison to society.
According to Gandhi ji, one should not be self-righteous, self-dependent and self-interested while performing any action, rather, before acting, one must consider whether his act would be of any good for the poorest, weakest person one knows. That is, no one should be free to decide for his own pursuit of happiness, rather he should consider and chase the happiness of the poorest and weakest person one knows. Gandhi ji dreamed of the rule of weaklings and deprived, where the stronger and better workers, producers, creators are willfully subjected to serve the weakest, most depraved person one knows. Obviously, Ahimsa was his second most important mantra, as he knew that stronger could not be enforced to serve the weaker by means of violence, rather it could be done only by means of democratically renouncing self-interest, self-reliance, selfishness. Gandhi ji was the saint of selflessness. He wanted every one to devote his life willfully and peacefully with utmost devotion, for the improvement and goodness of the weakest of the person by means of Trusteeship⁵ .
Argumentatively, if every one becomes as spiritual as Gandhi was and determines to be selfless, always willing and acting only to serve the good of the Most poor and weak person he knows, it would be very easy to make the dream of Egalitarianism to be true. If every strong and better person were working willfully to fulfill the good of not his self, but of the poorest person, the materialistic, capitalistic, or individualistic difference between the stronger or weaker would be nil. For this, he proposed the idea of Trusteeship⁶ .
Gandhi ji’s Talisman, which we Indians have been indoctrinated throughout our student life, is actually the mystical potion of spiritual socialism that tends everyone to willfully and peacefully accept his duty to serve the poorest person one knows. Gandhi ji simply declined the importance of Individual life, and his right to pursue his happiness, his good, rather he inspired everyone to willfully accept the servitude of the weakest person one knows and to devote his actions for the goodwill of the poorest person.
Here comes the undeniable hypocrisy and psychological illness. How can one be selfless? How can one devote himself to think before acting, not his good, his profit, but the good of the other, the poorest? Gandhi ji’s talisman becomes a psychological poison for an individual because he naturally is selfish and tends to serve his own good. Gandhi ji’s talisman enforces him philosophically to consider himself a wrong-doer.
Conclusion: Gandhi was a Radical Egalitarian⁷ , his philosophical idea was socialism, yet he was a supporter of anarchism and opposed majority rule of state government. He was proponent of Non violence, yet, he wanted to destroy class differences and hence Division of Labour and capitalism but peacefully through spiritual indoctrinations. If capitalism and Individual freedom can be sacrificed for the cause of socialism, than one may call Gandhi a libertarian, otherwise he was not a Libertarian.

I am inviting those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.
Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community. Mahatma Gandhi⁸

1. Gandhi’s talisman
2. A tribute to an unlimited legacy, Gandhi’s concern for individual welfare lead him to distinguish between man’s basic needs and human acquisitiveness. As a result of his democratic temper, Gandhi argued that a thing could be considered beautiful only if it could in principle be made available to all. Tested against that principle, the Mont Blanc pen is a moral and aesthetic failure. Why Mont Blanc Pen is a moral and aesthetic failure? because not “ALL” can afford it.
3. Realizing Gandhian Democracy, People First India
4. Realizing Gandhian Democracy, People First India
5. Gandhi ji on Capitalism, Socialism and Communism, Applied Gandhi
6. Gandhi ji on Capitalism, Socialism and Communism, Applied Gandhi
7. Freedom Versus Egalitarianism, Reason for Liberty
8. Gandhi ji on Capitalism, Socialism and Communism, Applied Gandhi

Long ago at the shores of Indian Ocean, there used to be a country. It was an officially democratic nation whose ruler caste (whom we now a days know as Politicians) were very happy and prosperous. As the nation was officially Democratic, no one was actually puzzled against the extreme prosperity of the politicians, the rulers of that nation. The general population was also presumably satisfied at their standards.
Many people were happy because they could get the rationed LPG fuel cylinder while standing in the queue, while some others were happy because they could get the Gas cylinder easily at a little higher price through black marketing. Most of the people were happy because they could earn two-time bread for their living and could arrange a little bit of clothing. It was a god blessed nation and as it was a secular democratic state, every religion held specific importance; the populace was religiously superstitious and god-fearing. Nobody used to believe that they are the soul earner of their living, rather they considered it as God’s blessing, and hence there were seldom any agitation for individual rights. Religion became the very power of politicians to proclaim there right to rule over the populace.
Gradually, the ruler started feeling that the “religion” is loosing its effect in the nation and that became the cause of worry for the politicians. As all “religions” were equally important tools for the politicians to rule, they realized that if the religions loose their glory, people might start feeling agitated, demanding and querying. Thus it seemed necessary for the politicians to plan and act to ascertain the importance of religion, they sincerely wanted to establish the ruling power of that nation as the protector of all religions. The think-tank of politicians was engrossed to plan the possible ways to reassert the sanctity of religion.
At last, the think-tank of ministers conjectured the importance of a very old building situated at a historical town (Ajodhya) of the country. The building was hugely dilapidated and nobody used to care to visit it. It was in a sense, unimportant for the present populace with no significance. It was believed that once upon a time, that building was a great temple, a religious place. Once, an infiltrator came and attacked that religious temple, destroying it, he ensued to make a new religious building, a Minaret and named it after his own name (Babri Masjid).
The general population was indifferent about that historically disputed religious place. There were already plentiful religious temples, minarets, gurudwaras and churches. Yet, a section of the ruler caste (the politicians) determined to make a new temple at the place of that dilapidated worthless minaret. They thought, it would bring huge applause and happiness in the masses and that will again establish a religiously sanctimonious rule over the nation. The other section of the ruler caste (politicians) used the opportunity to overplay the tool of other religion, debated about saving the already dilapidated Minaret, and proposed of renewing it. The debate grew gross and took the form of agitation accompanied with violence. Consequentially, the common men of the nation found themselves divided over the issue of religions and that became a further triumph of the politicians. At last, the old ramshackle building was attacked and destroyed. Nobody could say if the common men felt any happiness or satisfaction at the destruction, yet all sections of ruler cast (the politicians) were exuberant about the instruction, it provided them a further cause to establish their power to rule.
Thus, the ramshackle of a building that was generally of no importance for the common people of the nation suddenly became the most important issue for the public. Everyone was forced to think about it. The issue of making a temple became the hottest debate. Some people were sad for the destruction of a meagre minaret, some were happy for the hope of making of already redundant temple. The division of public grew angry and caused huge bloodshed. Women were raped, children were butchered, villages were burnt, and people were murdered. The religions were reclaiming their glory at the expense of blood of common men.
The prime ruler of the nation established a Commission¹ to examine the destruction of the minaret. The building was no longer of no importance; it suddenly became the potent farm of political ventures and profitable vote banks.
Gradually, the issue of the destruction of minaret started fading. People again found themselves busy for living their own life peacefully, trying to improve their living standards and finding ways of prosperity. They again started seeking for their happiness. The issue of temple and minaret again became obsolete. Yet, the rulers felt that it is not good and they should try to venture at the use of the tool of religion to reclaim their right to rule. Thus, they remembered about the Commission and the report of the Commission over the destruction of that minaret that was Commissioned decades ago.²
The report was announced publicly in the biggest house of public representatives (Sansad Bhawan) openly. At the report ³, the different sectors of the ruling caste (the politicians) again started debating to show how much they care for the general public and how happy the common men would be about there representatives fighting for their religious sanctity. Yet, the public was further smart this time. Common men saved themselves from the trap of the ruling caste (the politicians) to divide and rule the public. The common men already had found ways to prosperity and happiness elsewhere. The public was religious even then and used to pray every morning, but they were smart enough to ignore any debate over the obsolete dilapidated building any further. Thus, the ramshackle of that building, which was forced to be the reason of violence and agitation within the populace, again became unconcerned, unnoticed and unable to divide the public and cause further violence and bloodshed.

1. Liberhan Commission, wikipedia
2. Babri Demolition meticulously planned: Liberhan Commission, Indian express
3. Liberhan Commission report, PDF file

“Sir, you need to immediately visit St-Tropez and beaches in France as Pakistan has coastal areas that could be built on similar lines to attract foreign tourists,” Senator Enver Baig advised the minister. The proposal was readily endorsed by other participants of the meeting held on Wednesday.¹

The Minister believes that visiting foreign beaches will broaden Mr Rehman’s “intellectual” horizon.
Obviously, peeping on topless beach-goers will certainly increase the “intellect”.
Anyways, what do you think about the ban of alcohol in Gujarat?
Gujarat also has a big shoreline that can easily be converted to well-maintained private or government supported tourist line.
Recently after the Mumbai terrorist attack, Indian Intelligence pointed out the doubt that terrorist might have entered Indian coastal lines through Gujarat sea area.²
If Government allow and inspire private investors to develop Gujarat coastal area, that will provide enough reason to keep a keen eye at Indian shores with a proper safety need to abort any such further attempt by terrorists or attackers.
In addition, it will create jobs and options to produce wealth and that will reduce poverty. As the private investors on the Gujarat shoreline will be earning from it, they will provide or innovate a better and proper safety net to protect their consumers and visitors and foreign tourists.
Yet, the problem of Gujarat coastal lines will face the same situation as the Pakistan Ministry is facing. Alcohol is completely abolished in Gujarat. When in 2007, CM Modi tried to relieve bans on alcohol, congress politicians opposed the move, claiming it is against Gandhiji’s moral and disrespect for all Gujarat if government allows sale of alcohol.
Should we send all such Indian politicians to seashores of south France too along with Mr Rehman? They may also experience the increase of “intellect” then.
Indians exclaim about there pseudo-secularism pompously, but the reality is, India is no better than any theocracy like Pakistan where the political goons keep teaching and preaching Morality and culture every now and then.

1. Tourism, Islam, ban on liquor and advice to visit foreign beaches, The International News
2. Terrorist knocking on Indian Doors, Reason for Liberty

For decades, secretaries of defense helped to justify their gargantuan budget requests by claiming that high levels of military spending would be “good for the economy” and that reduced military spending would cause recession. So common did this argument become that Marxist critics gave it the apt name military Keynesianism. On both the right and the left, people believed that huge military spending propped up an economy that, lacking this support, would collapse into depression. Such thinking played an important part in the political process that directed about $15 trillion (in today’s dollars) into Cold War military spending⁶ between 1948 and 1990. Nor did the argument disappear even after the Soviet Union unsportingly left the playing field.
Military Keynesianism has enough surface plausibility that it garnered a substantial following in certain quarters even before Keynes’s General Theory gave it apparent intellectual respectability. In his 1944 book As We Go Marching⁷ John T. Flynn noted as a fact “this devotion of the conservative elements to military might,” and he emphasized that “militarism is the one great glamorous public-works project upon which a variety of elements in the community can be brought into agreement.” He understood, however, that military public-works spending has far graver consequences than ordinary Keynesian pyramid building. “Inevitably, having surrendered to militarism as an economic device, we will do what other countries have done: we will keep alive the fears of our people of the aggressive ambitions of other countries and we will ourselves embark upon imperialistic enterprises of our own.” Flynn deserves high marks as a prophet.

Thus, it shows why it is possible for Pakistan to support terrorism, wars and havoc even in a situation when it is economically devastated. Just before Mumbai attacks, Pakistan was begging money from international communities to pay for its charges.
As the general thinking of Mixed economy governments is that government spending helps economy, it is quite possible that Pakistan planned it all.
Now one may say that Pakistan was already spending allot on Afghanistan border along-with America. We all know that Pakistani people just do not support US and its anti-terror strikes. In order to gain public confidence and gather the military power properly devoted for an aim, Pakistan needed to create a situation. After Mumbai attacks, Indian government got enraged and started making international pressure on Pakistan, and Pakistan got a chance to move its forces towards Indian borders. Now public has more important issue to handle for instead of opposing and criticizing Pakistani government. Against India, they are all united, and that brings confidence in government. Thus, more than anything, the reason behind all Pakistani military efforts since long past is the Keynesian mixed Economy, government regulated economy based on Military Keynesianism.
Is India immune to this Keynesian mixed economy madness?
We all know Indian government and politicians like our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is staunch Keynesian economist. As he said in his interview.⁸

It clarifies that in any recession or downturn, a government, be it Indian, or Pakistanis, or Chinese, or US government, may go for wars and mass murders, and what would be the reason? Just to bring economy out of recession or depression or deflation.
Such is the effect of Mixed economy government controlled economy.
In His article, Higgs clarifies that these entire Keynesian hypothesis is nothing but a myth. Austrian economists have been opposing all this madness since always, yet American government almost always followed the Military Keynesianism idea and so is Indian government is hell bent to do it. The recent tension on borders and Media are just phase of it. Just some days ago, Indian government announced the draconian UAPA law which is no better than the Patriot act. India is demanding missiles from US. How logical it is to go for an Arm’s race? Should government waste tax-payers money in such infertile activities?
Does spending on worthless unproductive things help anybody?
After 9/11 attacks, Paul Krugman⁹ suggested that there will be favorable effects of the terrorist attack.
Yet that is how almost all government’s act. After 2001 recession in USA, US troops engaged in severe attacks on Iraq. Was it Keynesian Mixed economy effect?

The U.S. is likely to increase further spending on defense and on rebuilding the infrastructure that has been destroyed. This would ultimately create a positive sentiment in an already lethargic American economy, says Oommen A. Ninan¹⁰ .

Again there is recession, and Obama is a Keynesian. He knows he cannot keep US military fighting in Iraq, thus, he has announced stronger troops in Afghanistan.
In such a situation, is there possibility for Indian government to waste money on such needless wars? While discussing Indian Reserve Bank Dilemma, we showed how fear of recession is senseless as it clears out all “non-productive-activities” and helps the market to revamp and gain stability. We further discussed that injecting money in market would be a wrong cause as it would further increase the percentage of bad assets. We discussed how “Bail Outs” never help an economy but further increase the burden. We, the citizens of India and Pakistan do want peace, yet is it possible?
It is quite obvious that any governmental intervention in economics causes harm alone. Yet, the biggest harm to human kind can be wars terrorism and Military Keynesianism.

1. Military Keynesianism, Wikipedia Link
2. Keynesian economics, Wikipedia Link
3. Robert Higgs, Independent.org
4. Military Keynesianism was refuted in 1945-47, Independent.org
5. Higgs,Independent.org
6. Cold War military spending between 1948 and 1990, Independent.org
7. As We Go Marching, John T. Flynn
8. he says here,sikhtimes.com
9. Paul KrugmanHis article
10. Oommen A. Ninan, The Hindu

Altruistic paradox is unlikely a new term for most readers, especially those who have some inclination into objectivist or rather post/pro Darwinian philosophies if I am asked. I would however start with an attempt to firstly state what this paradox is all about in its classical sense. A psychological overview based on certain studies, which were done specifically to prove or disprove this theory. Finally, I shall attempt to put in perspective the term ‘selfishness’ as brought out in Objectivist philosophy.

Before the Darwinian theory of evolution came forth, the most accepted theories on origin of man were religious philosophies. All of them invariably pointed towards an intelligent design of universe and man. They held man as the finest creation of God, and qualities like altruism and love for fellow being intrinsic qualities that were embedded in man heart by the divine creator himself. Darwinian Theory of evolution changed this perception forever, with scientific proofs backing his theory he put forth the various laws of evolution. His theories of ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ brought forth aggression and continuous competition between the species and more visibly within the species as most intrinsic and instinctive behavior. He argued that each living entity aggressively struggles for ones survival and further procreation. Implication of the theory was therefore that Altruism among humans is simply a paradox and our actions are not motivated by any higher altruistic goals but very selfish instincts.

Human behavior as understood by the present day psychology however transcends both these arguments. The studies that were conducted to understand various behavioral aspects of humans both clinical methods and psychoanalytic have revealed various interesting facts about these debated behavioral aspects. Altruism has been found as a behavioral trait in many species like squirrels monkeys and humans. Female Squirrels for instance make distress calls and assess its male counterparts based on their response. Guerrillas and monkeys are known to respond when the members of their clan are attacked at times some members even risking their life for the group. Discovery is rather filled with documentaries showing mothers of various species risking their lives to save their offspring. These behaviours are not in contradiction with the Darwinian Theory of evolution. Theory of Natural selection gives room to nature to select certain characteristics that aid in a species successful survival. Nature seems to encourage altruistic traits in species where offspring need a lot of support and care before they are on their own. Humans too invariably fall in that category, invariable all females have tendency to prefer protective and caring males because such instincts are more beneficial towards protection and care of offspring. Females being the one with limited capacity to procreate tend to be choosy in this regard.

What nature promotes is certain characteristic traits that are altruistic in nature overtly, but serves a very selfish purpose of self procreation covertly. Nature favors genes and not individuals based on traits that help survival the best. A classical example being the species of Black widow spider, the female has the tendency to feed on male during intercourse. Invariably the male is killed in the process and male spiders are afraid of female for this reason. It is thus that the male whose sexual drive far exceeds its intrinsic fear of death attempts mating and therefore procreates. Its fearful counterparts though live longer but in longer run vanish. Similarly, in case of species where offspring need more care and protection genes, which have more tendencies to emotionally, attach and take care stands better chance.

Such findings however do not put in perspective the philosophical and religious concepts of altruism. One that holds in esteem sacrifice of individuals for the society defines selfless love and other altruistic conceptions. These behavior trends that are found human society has its root origin in another phenomenon called social conditioning. Human mind is subjected to rhetoric conditioning by the society. Cognitive development of personality of individuals have so much bearing on the environment that he has been brought up that you can make a man most willingly carry out suicide bombing. Similarly, men can be conditioned to pity and piety, altruistic behavior patterns like sacrificing oneself for nation, for ones religion, for ones society, family and so and so forth. William MacDougall, one of the founders of social psychology had pointed out how our growth of self consciousness and self regarding sentiments is influenced by the approval and disapproval by fellow men

Almost all that animals are capable in some degree of learning to modify their instinctive behaviour in the light of experience, under the influence of pain and pleasure, and in young child, also this kind of learning leads to first step beyond pure instinctive behavior.

In this way, the child’s idea of his self early comes to be an idea, not merely of his body and of certain bodily and mental capabilities, but also of system of relation between his self and other selves. Now the attitude of other person is presented towards him are more or less freely expressed by them in praise, reproof, gratitude, reproach, anger, pleasure or displeasure and so forth.

The child’s self consciousness is, then, nourished and molded by the reflection of himself that he finds in minds of his fellows

The strength of the regard men pay to the public opinion, the strength of their desire to secure approval and avoid disapproval of the fellow men goes beyond all rational grounds.

Idea that I am trying to bring forth here is that behavior trends that we tend to hold in high esteem as self less and altruistic is nothing more than a learned behavior that confirms with the self regarding sentiments that he has over the time molded to confirm. Behavior of certain nature gives his ego a boost, confirms with his image in the society and reaffirms the image that he has in his mind, the so called man in the mirror. You may even find criminal tendencies originating from such self regarding sentiment where in the criminal finds losing touch with his self if he does not continue committing crime.

Other classical examples are study on changing attitudes of children towards Negroes (study during apartheid era). The child who initially is very comfortable and loving with his coloured nanny, with time starts distancing and even abusing the same lady. In Indian context, there are instances where child of upper caste reared on the milk of lower caste women, grows up to regard her as untouchable. Social conditioning can thus explain a plethora of behavior trends that does not confirm with instinctual human behaviour.

Coming to Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism, she was a lady born and brought up in Soviet Russia. She had seen the extents to which men can be exploited on the name of community and society. She had seen in her life men getting sacrificed both willingly and unwillingly to this irrational order. Her endeavour in her work was to free the man to whatever extent possible from the clutches of society. His protagonist were therefore always highly individualistic and to an extent antisocial beings.

Without dwelling into the whole epistemology of her philosophical derivations, if her philosophy were to be summarized, it would be thus. Objectivism holds reality to be absolute and objective in nature. That is A is A and 2+2 = 4, she allows no scope of relativity or perceptual bias in this regard. Secondly, she holds reason as the sole tool to make sense of the world around us, and what we derive using this tool has no biases or mystic vision. One thus need not depend on mosses or Jesus, Muhammad or Krishna or for that matter Ayn Rand to make sense of reality. No commandments or religious dictum need to be followed. What needs to be followed is purely your rational judgement. What man can perceive objectively is his self and his judgment are therefore with his context, his actions as value he derives out of it.

What we derive from here is our argument of selfishness. Well consider this scenario, you have a piece of cake in your hand and you are feeling a bit hungry, a very hungry visibly distressed kid comes in front of you and starts begging for it. What do you do? Your action can be turning away from there and having your piece of cake, or giving it to the kid. If the gleam on the face of that kid when he gets the cake is more valuable to you that satisfaction that you would have by consuming it, you can go ahead and give it to the kid. Now if you friends are standing next to you and you want to impress them, well that is again your choice, and your valuation of the action. There is no selfless in the act, it is yourself only that is deriving the pleasure and satisfaction from the action. It is but by no means correct that your friends force you to give away your cake when you wanted to have it. In such scenario in heart of heart you are not happy with what you did, or rather were made to do. In similar manner, a soldier fighting for his nation must exercise the same volition and rational judgment, and if his action suits his self, he is justified in his actions. It may be deemed as altruistic by fellow countrymen but by no logic self less. It is indeed if it was self less you have taken from the soldier the very pleasure and purpose of his life.

It is this simple fact that is not understood by many and they go about making heroes and villains out of people without judging the rationality of their actions. The society tends to push its agenda and perception bit too harshly on the individuals. It is this coercive nature of collectivism where in actions by individuals are labelled as good or bad without respecting the individuals volition and choice is what she most vehemently objected and fought. She held the state, society and the collectivist mentality that it these institutions endorse as the root cause of most vices. She rallied with the word selfishness, instead of some benign alternative perhaps because it suited her fiction writer mannerism of invoking controversy. If we do not shy to attribute her credit, she has in a single word challenged the very foundation of social moral codes. It is amazing how a single word can have such massive impact on our collective consciousness. How by declaring a classical vice having its root in holiest of books of our civilization as the new age’s virtue she altered the very perception of millions across the globe.

Christmas message: Pope Benedict says saving humanity from gays is as important as saving the rainforest from destruction

Obviously one may say Pope is right for the reason being both the threats of environmentalists about global warming, and religious dictator’s threat about homosexuality are pretty idiotic, wrong and Bad Science (BS).
Actually, I have a lot of respect for Roman Catholics, I know they can often be, warm, honest and intellectually sophisticated people, and as a group, they are not near the lumped together image of dry, sour and fanatic 19th century Christians who have said goodbye to reason or understanding.
That’s why it makes me both sorry, outraged and angry when Pope Benedict targets any kind of homosexual/transgenders/transvestite practices (bisexuality isn’t mentioned but no doubt included) in his Christmas message and punches home the traditional position that all non-straight sexual practices are unwanted, and adds that they pose a major threat to the human race – and then he still professes that the Church loves homosexuals if only they’d abstain from gay/lesbian sex and recognize their error and sin. *deep sigh*
The twist about homosexuality actually threatening mankind – because people would no longer be producing kids? Or by way of the breakdown of the traditional family? – is a new twist, that kind of neo-con slag I have never heard from a pope before.
Sex is essentially for procreation, and homosexuality or “blurring of the borders between male and female” is a threat to the cultural and demographic future of mankind. This is unusually glib rhetoric even for a major religious leader. I mean, after a number of pedophile scandals among the priesthood one might start to question if celibate priests and an insistence on straight sex only is always the right way. None of this here though, just down into the trench.
Moral policing is the worst kind of tyranny a religious authority can divulge in.
According to Joseph Ratzinger “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,”

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”

By terming homosexual inclination as an “Objective disorder”, he was telling people that although each individual does not freely choose homosexuality, it is nevertheless inherently and objectively wrong. That is not only Homosexuals but also the orientation of being emotionally, psychologically, and physically attracted to members of the same sex — that is objectively wrong. Not a “sin,” but still wrong.

Homosexuality is not Immoral

Every week, in America alone, approximately 8,000 teenagers and children contract sexually transmitted diseases. Sexually active teen’s ages 15 to 19 have the highest STD rates of any age group, and nearly half of the 18.9 million new STD cases in 2000 were among youths ages 15 to 24. (Again in America, around 3,000 girls fall pregnant every week and the ratio is similar in Australia.) While gays and lesbians are quite simply just another (excuse this pun) fact of life. So, surely, the full scope of sex education is a good thing. It’s not as if sex education is, as some people seem to think, equivalent to giving kids some kind of inferred permission to engage in sex.
On the other hand, certainly everyone is entitled to raise their children, within the common boundary of what’s acceptable to the community, with the same morals and social values as themselves?
We live in a society where sex is everywhere. It’s used to sell everything from cars to choc milk. It’s there on everyone’s TV. It’s in every newspaper, magazine, and posted on every billboard. It’s talked about. It’s laughed about. You just can’t avoid it. So, I suppose it’s only fair and reasonable that some parents may want to make an effort to protect their children from, and at least have some control over, what they consider a deviation from their own good values and judgments.
Yes, politics, religion and sex… An atheist has the right to bring their child/children up without a belief in a god or gods. While a left winger is entitled to raise their child/children to be accepting of socialistic ways. Whether or not you agree or disagree with these things, they’re still freedoms everyone is entitled to. We tend to take them very much take for granted, so why should sex education be different?
Sex education is a health issue. I suppose, if you really wanted to, you could make it an elective course, allowing parents to opt out for their children. It may be a stupid thing for them to do (at least in my opinion) but they could do it.
As for the Church, theoretically more babies mean more followers. But how, then do you explain the marked decline in Catholics around the US, at least. And getting new priests (and, I assume, nuns) from this country is a serious problem for them.
It is my belief that better education combined with increased availability of information, through the Internet, cable TV, even cell phones, allows people to learn about other religions, or arguments against religions, and gives them more options. Unfortunately, it seems that many of those who are turning their backs on religion are placing their faith in UFO’s, Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) and lake monsters, instead.
As for my school-days, I didn’t need anything graphic forced down my throat by the state/school system to understand what sex and STD’s etc were about and I sure didn’t need to waste time on it when I did go to school taking a class specifically for it.
I know not all children have good parents that taught them anything about the basics to being alive or procreation, and personally if your an orphan or fosterchild etc and raised by the state then by all means force feed away.
I personally believe this would be a non-issue if the courses on sex ed were “parent selected” electives in all high school curriculum’s, allowing those that did not wish to be assaulted with such to educate themselves and or their own children.
Unfortunately most liberal education systems and governments believe that the “people are incapable of self responsibility and or teaching their own children and go to great lengths to keep such activities from occurring.
Churches and protesters of such things have no business disrupting schools with demonstrations when it’s the government that’s responsible. Their time would be better spent attempting to buy off the politicians responsible for backing the legislation. After all that’s how the offending courses got put into the schools to begin with, (someone convinced or paid off a politician).
I know this sounds like I am against sex education…I am not, what I am against is the “State” forcing sex education on children whose parents don’t want them to receive the “States” version of it.
Once again about the Muslim’s views on sex, People tend to hate and fear that which they don’t understand. They also tend to hate those who are markedly (and sometimes even just barely) different from themselves. They tend to forget that those others will view them with the same fear and hatred, and for the same reasons: they are different.
In the US, and in much of western Europe as well, people tend to think of themselves as enlightened, modern, civilized people, and we tend to think of the followers of Islam as barbaric, medieval brutes. They, on the other hand, think of themselves as devout, civilized and enlightened, and think of US citizen as despotic, hedonistic, heretics.
Who’s right?
Sexuality in any culture or religion which is male dominated is going to be biased against women, simply because those men will have, to one degree or another, taken the reins of power into their own hands, yet cannot help but view the sexual attraction of women as a threat to that power. As women gain more real power, like they have in the West, men tend to lose that fear of their sexuality, seeing them more and more as equals, in the boardroom and the bedroom. Admittedly, even in US, people are not quite at that point yet, but they are much farther along than most Muslim countries. And part of the reason that Muslim and Catholic leaders protest against sex education is that it demystifies female sexuality to some degree, allowing the young to see women more as equals and less as property.
This de-mystification can also all to easily lead to emasculation of a society and a trans-valuation away from natural bio-ethical truths.
Religious fundamentalism is all too often close minded.
The Islamic and the Christians both suffer from overt “fundamentalist” idealism and un-yielding dogmas that lead to direct confrontation.
The problem is not in the cultural identity of the individual. It is in the individual religious zealot’s resolution to continue along a chosen path without regard to logical observation that is the real culprit. Both east and west has too many examples to list.
It is a short sighted mistake to assume that a patriarchal society is also by default a misogynist one. Well established gender roles give structure to a chaotic environment and are often a necessity in economically poorer regions for survival.
Every culture in history that has lost touch with its biological orientation gender identity has fallen into decadence and decline.

Nothing could by more mistaken than the now fashionable attempt to apply the methods and concepts of the natural sciences to the solution of social problems. -Ludwig Von Mises(Planned Chaos P-30)

We all have heard numerous times Rosie O’Donnell screaming on the television about how Catholic judges must not be allowed in SCOTUS(Supreme Court Of The United States) as a measure for separation of Church and State, and I am sure you must have heard a lot and hold an opinion about a clear separation of Church and State. But this article is not about Religion and State, rather its about the undefined separation of Science and State.

What is the meaning of separation of Science and State?

A clear separation of science and state is a legal doctrine means that no government policies are made by keeping Science in mind, no government money must be spent for a specific scientific project. This separation is quite similar to separation of Church and State where government money cannot be used to promote a specific religion, no policies must be made following beliefs of a specific faith, and government and religious institutions are to be kept separate from each other.^[1]

The idea of separation of Church and State was first given by Thomas Jefferson(founding father of America, and author of American Declaration of Independence) and championed by James Madison(another founding father of America and principle drafter of United States Bill of Rights).

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” -Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Danbury Baptists^[2]

Following this phrase and the guidelines led by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison thus drafted the First Amendment as:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unfortunately our founding fathers failed to clearly define the “wall of separation” between Science and State. Most of the laws made in United States of America or elsewhere, rely heavily on scientific basis. Massive amount of money is given to scientific funding, hard earned tax payer money is spent on “promoting science and arts”.

What is the problem with intermingling of Science and State?

Science has now become just another form of belief system – There was a time when whatever Royal Academy of Science in London proclaimed, it was considered to be a scientific truth. But with the advent of more and more scientific fronts, and decentralization of scientific research to various countries, there seems to be no clear leader in the field of scientific research, and this has resulted in creation of numerous hotly debated groups of scientists. Those who believe in Big Bang theory, those who don’t, those who believe in Global Warming, those who don’t, those who believe humans are causing global warming those who believe its a natural phenomenon.

Science is more about your faith in it than it is about the objective truth – Today scientific community is merely an agenda provider for the Atheious(as opposed to religious) people. There is a massive debate on Stem Cell research on whether government should fund it or not, the controversy is not whether government should use public money for these things or not, rather whether Stem Cell research kills human life or not. The Global Warming debate is the most famous of them all, there is no substantial evidence to show whether it is being caused by the man made pollution or its merely a natural act. Even if its known with 80% certainty that Global warming is caused by human action, the price to verify this theorem is really high. But here is the deal, if you are leftist, anti-corporationist, occidental apologist, the issue of Global warming is so much a truth to you as the Sun light. If you are a right wing conservative, then Global warming is a complete myth.

Science is merely a propaganda tool for politicians – Politicians like Al Gore use Science for their propaganda purposes, a political tool to rally the left-wing environmentalist, and to be significant again in the politics. In quasi-socialist countries like India, where the govt planners completely fail to provide utilities to people use the environmental propaganda to reduce the consumption. People in Socialist and quasi-socialist countries care more about Environment than people in Quasi-Capitalist and Capitalist countries. Socialist countries manage to completely separate church and state, but because of their failure of clear separation fo science and state, they end up mass murdering their own citizens. The best example in this regard is “Great Chinese Famine(1958-1961)” where the scientific methods of farming(the idea of planting seeds very closely as they will share the nutrition on the socialist model) , and the Great Leap Forward where the govt planners tried to scientifically induce a super fast Industrial revolution, and ended up in the death of millions of poor Chinese.

Are you saying that Science is bad, and you must not listen to Scientific advice?

No, I am not saying anything like that. I believe that there is objective truths. But I do not believe in throwing these truths, or forcing people to follow these truths against their will. I do not support the usage of science or statistics in making any public policy. For example, if scientific studies show that 80% of the black males who are once convicted, end up committing more crimes. Then I am strictly against formation of any policy which throws any black male once convicted of a crime forever in jail.

Drugs are outlawed in America because of lack of clear separation of Science and State. These people who logically harm nobody by using or selling drugs, are thrown in jail with criminals who have actually harmed other people.

Personally speaking you should sure listen to science and reason, if you feel that you are harming the environment, and must take measures to stop it, then yes, do whatever you feel like, but you do not have a right to take a gun, and enter the house of your neighbor and lock him up in your basement for 4 years because he uses more electricity then you think is the right amount for the health of the earth(which would be the case once you pass a law out which prohibits people from using too much electricity or contributing too much in “Global Warming”).
If a doctor says you will become unhealthy if you eat junk food, and if you want to listen to him, you may stop eating junk food, but you have no right to use a gun and prevent other people from buying or selling junk food.

Scientific state no different than or Theosophical state

I think at this point of the article I am losing my readers. Ok lets see it this way. Mixing Science and State is no different than mixing Church and State.
Eating pork is prohibited in Judaism and Islam, but even with a Judeo-Muslim majority pork cannot be banned in America because of clear separation of religion and state.
BUT, the same Judeo-Muslim majority can get Pork products BANNED from America if a Jewish scientist proves that eating pork is harmful for health.

Homosexuality was banned in America until 1970s for religious reasons, and LGBT celebrities like Rosie O’Donnell who go to great depths in criticizing religious Americans and their beliefs. Mainly because conservative America opposes Gay Marriage on the grounds of Culture, Tradition, and Religion. Just as much as I support Rosie O’Donnell on the issue of Gay Marriage, I totally am against on the issue of Environmentalism, where she supports the usage of Science to create oppressive laws against people.
She supports creation of environmental protection laws against Americans.

My question to her is, how is she any different than the religious fundamentalists of America who oppose Gay marriage on the grounds that it will destroy the world and throw it into sin and promiscuity? Lets say tomorrow if scientific opinion finds out that sin exists in physical form and contributes in global warming, would she support re criminalizing Homosexuality on scientific grounds?

In fact lets come on a more basic and realistic preposition. Gays and sexually promiscuous people get more AIDS than straight and sexually moral people. Should we ban homosexuality, adultery and other forms of sexual promiscuity?

Conclusion

There are many political systems who proclaim that the government’s only job is to uphold the objective truths. Sadly the problem with that is, it disastrously arms the government with tools of oppression. We may have been brainwashed into believing that Science is always more logical and reasonable than religion(Note: Merely by using the term, “brainwashed” I am not saying there is anything wrong in believing in Science, or dictating your life with Science), but we must make sure Science and State are clearly separate. Yes we may not get man on the Moon, we may not get the Internet, but if the cost of doing these things is human Liberty and Freedom, then we are running in net Loss. Voluntary human action through Free Market will eventually get us these things with most benefit to maximum number of people.
Therefore I suggest a 28th Amendment in US Constitution, the separation of Science and State.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a scientific opinion or prohibit the free exercise of private property rights on the grounds of scientific reasoning.

Science is competent to establish what is. It can never dictate what ought to be. -Ludwig Von Mises (Planned Chaos)

1. http://www.historycentral.com/Civics/S.html
2. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Police were called and the two boys as well as what appeared to be a 13-year-old girl were freed.
But the girl later turned out to have been one of the alleged abusers, 34-year-old Barbora Skrlova.
She subsequently fled to Norway before being brought back to the Czech Republic earlier this year.

This is just as bizarre and scary as the torment of the Fritzl kids – not over such a long time though! – And containing some really strange twists. Small time cannibalism, flaying, bondage and detecting your neighbor’s wireless network.

It’s not in that article, but Barbara (who was found with the boys and later arrested as a likely part in the abuse) pulled an unusual trick when she fled to Denmark and then to Norway. She turned to cross-dressing to disguise herself, plus taping down her breasts and shaving her head, and then pretending to be a schoolboy, posing as “Adam”, age 13. Seems her small height had helped her to appear 13 already in the cellar.
For six months she attended a school in Oslo (probably mostly learning Norwegian with other immigrants). “He’s bright for his age” the teachers thought, but didn’t break ‘Adam’s’ stunt.

Again, it all started in the depth of the cellar…
What kind of God requires you to eat children and watch the torture from your kitchen?
I remember Vivekanand in his times supported the organized evolution of religion as a social building and removal of all blind faiths and resultant mysticism to reach to a state where reason, logic and science may become the only way to realize the objective truths rather than the mystical conundrum of these religion and cults. What he failed to understand was, evolution of religion is just a misnomer of negative evolution of humanity.
Some theists may shout that it’s not the crime of religion but it is crime of cult, and the organized religions which supports (and almost enforces) monotheism and common regulations and rituals for all, always defied and opposed such cults and ritualistic symbolism. But then again, all those so called, evolved organized religions couldn’t keep these obsessive faithful believers away from their mystical sacrificial beliefs. If some religion will oppose witch-craft, it will provide situations for honor-killings, if some religion will oppose cult-clashes, it will start killing thousands over the clash of religion. How can we forget the killing and conversions of Greeks by Christianity? Even the original Greeks forgot their own religion.

There have been many Gods down through histories who have “demanded” human sacrifice, and cannibalism. Some have even “needed” the ritual torture of their victims… err, worshipers.
Sadly, the only thing new here is that it’s happening in this supposedly enlightened age of reason.
This was added by associatedcontent.com:
“Not only did the members of the Grail Movement Cult inflict torture upon the boys, but it is alleged they forced Ondrej and Jakub to mutilate themselves, giving the boys knives with which to cut themselves.”
Isn’t it terrible?
Yes it is Terrible…once again the dangers for kids are not that strange looking bloke in the bushes, but their own family…
Last year in India, at Thane, a teacher of science sacrificed his 20 year old daughter in illusionary hopes that by killing and sacrificing his daughter, he may get a son out of the mist.
I wonder from where such weird beliefs take root in? I remember about Rama and his four brothers. Some saint gave some Holy Fruit to Dashrath and his three wives (who were incapable to procreate) and demonstrated that after eating that fruit equally, the three wives of Dashrath will get pregnant. Wasn’t it all magical? But then magic do happens in stories.
But how could a science teacher ever believe that after sacrificing his living daughter, he may get a son? May be he was influenced by that story of miracle. That much influenced that he forgot all science and reason.
I wonder how safe the children are, under such traits of their teachers and parents.
The truth is, even education and science fails in removing this blindness of these faithful religionists. Most of the times, even the students remains in perplex, perplex and of what to believe, the old religious stories and faiths or their new versions of creativism, or the science? And when some incident like this happens in their vicinity, the quagmire gets more harsh and effective over the innocent kids and religion gets a further new generation to grasp under the fire of blind-faith.
I surely support Steven Pinker on the increasingly peaceful human.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBF…e=user&search=

I love it when scientist proves that we’ve never lived in such a peaceful world as now, and people keep being surprised. Yet Human need to evolve a lot, to get rid of these cults, organized religions and other forms of collectivism. And I am afraid the way to evolution won’t be as peaceful as it seems.

When you understand why you dismiss all other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Let us consider a just opposite situation. Let’s say it is not bride or her family who have to pay dowry, but it is the groom who has to pay dowry in order to get married to prove to the bride’s family that he will be a good provider. Will that change the situations of womanhood to any better state?
Obviously, the answer is a big NO. It won’t effect in the situation of women in the society. The example is the Thailand’s cultural/traditional system of “Sin Sod”, according to which, the male has to give dowry to prove that he can be a good provider for the bride. But, in absence of social and economical freedom, even that causes a curse to women. (Read more about Sin Sod here Thai Dowries Change with Time.
Obviously, I am not against this system too if individual rights and mutually consensual premises are enforced under free-will contract system.
Many westerners marries farm girls from NE of Thailand by paying good amount in Sin Sod, some of them even marries girls who have already worked in bars or prostitution rackets for the cause of poverty.
Mostly, girls are being sold there by their families irrespective of their consent or non-consent just for the cause of greed of money by the poor farmers. The girls may be minors too. Hence, it causes unwanted breakage of individual rights and exploitation of individuals who obviously are women, girls. Many Thai men just cannot marry because of lack of good amount for Sin Sod, again similar situations as in India. There also, the dowry system proves to be working ok at rich family cordons. But at middle class and poor class, same dowry system proves to be havoc. It simply shows that, until the woman herself won’t stand for her individual rights as an individual and not as a mere part of a family or community or sect or religion/tradition or country, she won’t get any justice, no matters what ever changes the cultural traditions may take place. There is only one way for freedom, and that way is the Individual’s will and strength to be free on the basis of reason!

http://couplewriters.blogspot.com/p/about-us.html

On the other hand, Shivaji has always been posted as the pride of Marathas by Shiv Sena, which not only raised issues of discrimination on behalf of religion, but also raised issues of regionalism and reservations on behalf of statehood and keeps reiterating that “more should be done to promote the rights of “local” people in the state rather than “outsiders”!. Obviously, the statue of Shivaji will represent Marathi pride. Just some days ago Maharashtra was burning in fire on the issue of statehoods, UP, BIHARI, Tamils, and Marathi etc. The Hindu Muslim rift demonstrated by Shiv Sena is already a problem for peace, freedom and enlightenment. Where the need is to remove the darkness of dogmatic religions and superstitions and discriminations on behalf of language, native place and religion/cult/creed, the idol of Shivaji is constantly (and wrongly) being represented to strengthen it.
The plan is to erect the statue of Shivaji of about same height as that of statue of Liberty (305 ft=92.68 m). I wonder how the government is going to symbolize it to represent liberty, political equality, Individual rights, capitalism, globalization and democracy!
On the economic level, the plan may prove to be good to increase further more tourism in Mumbai. But the question is will it be a profitable move? $4.5 million is not a small amount, than it will cost for maintenance, security and arrangements too. So, is there any planned idea of government that how the statue will be adding for the public money and prosperity?
Actually, government never worries to think for the prosperity and profits of those who gives money to it as under compulsory taxation.
One suicide every 8 hours
At a time, when the water and road services of Mumbai are at worst, when farmers of Vidharbha are dying of hunger and committing suicide under the pressures of loans, government has planned to waste such a huge amount of money which has been forcibly collected from the citizens of Maharashtra, it is not voluntary-taxation or free-charity to erect the statue of liberty. So, when the money being planned to be invested on the statue is not donated at free-will and is actually being coerced and extracted from the individuals by the government, than how can it represent freedom and liberty? Literacy rates of Maharashtra are still just 76% so, how the statue will represent the enlightenment?
Obviously, it is nothing but a political ploy of congress government of Maharashtra (which failed to face the major problems at every facet) to woo the Marathi votes by encouraging the regional feelings. It is again a plan based on gaining short term profits totally concerned with Congress and which surely will cause greater loss for the Individual citizens in general. The money collected by Individuals under coercive compulsory taxation is again being used for political profits of a fraud political party and politicians. So, isn’t the project showing the tyranny, oppression of Individuals by collectivist government? And the blind public will again get involved in the dark feelings of cultism, regionalism, linguistic priorities and emotivism and will hurt themselves furthermore against enlightenment.
I term it as a slap on the face of Democracy, Capitalism, Freedom, Enlightenment and Individual Liberty!

“There’s no way Paris Hilton could have found me,” Moses quoted God as saying on his ABC television program ‘Stone Tablet News’ on Monday. “I am Almighty and I don’t just move in mysterious ways, I’m darn good at playing hide-and-seek!”

Moses said God, who sounded in fine spirits despite dwindling numbers of believers, thinks Hilton had Him confused with His only begotten son, Jesus.

 

“When Jesus was young, He was a very crafty hide-and-seek player,” God said. “Anybody who has read My book will recall the time he managed to hide from Mary and Joseph for three days and nights in a temple of all places!”

When questioned by Moses as to Jesus’ whereabouts from the age of twelve to thirty-three, God replied, “Not telling! But I will say it was rather foolish of him to have come out of hiding. We all know what that folly led to!”

God then claimed that Hilton may even have Him confused with the Virgin Mary.

“Think of it this way,” God said unto Moses. “Paris Hilton probably has never even seen a grilled cheese sandwich in her life. Prison food like that can make people see all sorts of strange things but when was the last time anybody ever saw Me burned into a grilled cheese sandwich?”

Independent sources confirm that manifestations of God have never taken any anthropormorphic form and that it’s only ever been the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus, who have ever been seen in this form.

When asked by Moses why Paris Hilton should claim to have found Him, God replied, “Bless her, her heart’s probably in the right place but she isn’t one of My brightest creatures. Obviously, the publicity is good for Me too and goes to show that repentent sinners invariably turn to My religion when they get sent to jail and not one of those kooky new-age ones they all flock to on the outside world.”

God then scoffed at suggestions that Paris Hilton intended to give up her lifestyle of endless VIP parties, red carpets and pursuing the limelight upon her release.

“She’s obviously forgotten My omnipresence if she thinks she can tell such porkies and not get smited. Besides, the whole Rupert Murdoch empire would crumble if it wasn’t for the bubble-headed antics of celebutantes like Hilton.”

When Moses asked if this would be such a bad thing, God replied, “Of course! Rupert is the embodiment of evil on earth and without evil, there can be no free will and without free will, there can be no salvation. The whole darn Christian industry would collapse if something like that ever happened!”

 

In summarizing, Moses asked whether God believed Hilton found Jesus or the Virgin Mary to which He replied, “My money is on Mary. Hilton is, afterall, not exactly on death row. If she was, she’d have a better chance of finding Jesus but she still wouldn’t find Me — especially after just three days looking!”

Meanwhile, God took time to speak with Pope Benedict XVI after his interview with Moses.

Pope Benedict asked, “Holy Father, who do you think will win the soccer World Cup this year?”

God merely smiled and tsk-tsked the pontiff and, amid a fury of thunder and lightning, ascended back up to Heaven.

(I enjoy writing humorous pieces as much as any other kind of fiction. A style I particularly like is the fake news item, such as this.)

It is the first part of Ayn Rand’s first television interview, in which she encapsulated the essence of Objectivism. In this first part, she discusses the post conformist Morality, emphasizing the Individual’s right to live for his happiness, that a Man is an end in himself and has a right to live for his own rational self-interest.
What is rational self-interest?
Rational self-interest is the basic premise, that every man has freedom to use his mind for his own benefits. He has capability to choose for himself and to decide for his development, that he is not a sacrificial animal to live for others benefits, nor he can force others to live for his sake. That a Man lives, by virtue of his mind, and enjoy his own earned rights and happiness with self-esteem.
“Self-Sacrifice is Evil.” Self-sacrifice is the precept that man needs to serve others in order to justify his existence that his moral duty is to serve others.
The reasonable concept of love arises from the base of virtues. The virtues a man acquires in his character by applying the reason for an Independent, Honest living.
One cannot love anyone because of pity. If one loves, a person, it means that, he considers that person as worthy, worthy of his love. That worth does not comes merely from the materialistic possession of that person, but that worth is dependent on the vital principles, a Man holds for his life.
One cannot love a rapist, a criminal, a terrorist. Only a crook may love a crook. A corrupt person only can love the corrupt.
One loves people not for what they do for him, or what he did for them, but he should love people for the virtues and values the other person have achieved in their own character.

In this second part, Ayn Rand clearly strengthen the Democracy.
She clearly states that although there’s nothing wrong in Democracy, but majority should be prevailed only in public or political processes, and Democracy must be limited, by inalienable Individual Rights. Majority cannot vote a Man’s life, or property or freedom away from him. If a Majority votes for an issue, that doesn’t means that issue is right. Majority doesn’t make it right. Reason decides it righteousness. Democratic process must be held by voluntary concerns, voluntary co-operation of a man, unforced. That government must have no right to initiate force or compulsion against any citizen except a criminal. There should be no right by the government like tax. There should be separation of state and economics. Just like state and religion must remain separated, state and economics must also remain separated. Nobody, neither employers nor employees should use governmental compulsion and force for their own benefits, that a laissez-faire economy, a completely free economic sector is necessity of a free-society.
She explains how collectivism trend reaches to dictatorship and economical disaster.
An example of deep-rooted Collectivism

In this part, she discusses her own life.
She explains that how helping someone also, is a rational action, if it is not sacrifice, if it is intended with rational self-interest and selfish happiness.
She further explains how and why, monopoly is impossible in a laissez-faire economy and that is why, it is best economic system. A free economy will NOT break-down. All depressions are caused by Government interference.
For the two thousand years, the world has been dominated by other philosophies and moralities based on altruism. Look around, consider the results.

A TRIBUTE TO AYN RAND

Other claims are totally ridiculous and imaginative. Like, unicorns are a reality, or there lives a white fairy at moon or soul is immortal, or heaven has 72 virgins, or there is a cosmic supernatural power which is conscious and is god, or gremlins are green, or Christ came back after 13 days. Or there would be some Avatar by the name kalki sooner or later. Etc.
Agnosticism refuses to discard arbitrary propositions. That’s the idea of agnostics behind the existence of God (be it whatever cosmic or fetish or emotional). An agnostic holds that claims be supposed to be appraised on the foundation of substantiation and claims can not be discarded if there is no satisfactory proof against them. That is, a claim should not be thrown away and rejected and thrown away straightforward even if it has no confirmation in support of or against it.
That is an agnostic is not at all rational, because he let subjective claims to go through his cognition. A rational person doesn’t try to find evidences to prove or disprove subjective claims because he has no motive to prove such claims at any case. Why will a rational person even try to prove that it’s not Lord Ganesh (some cosmic god showing his cosmic powers) who is drinking the milk?

The agnostic will say how can you say that it is not true?
The rational person will say its wastage of time and effort to prove subjective claims as true or false. If there can be some supernatural power according to agnostics, then why cannot be unicorns and fairies and leprechauns and headless horse riders and ghosts and ghost riders too? The burden of proof rests on he who asserts a proposition. No worth is gained by going around objecting illogical claims—it is a misuse of time and endeavor. (And why will an objectivist waste his time and energy?).

Moreover, it is not only useless, it is impossible to disprove such arbitrary claims too. A subjective claimer never seeks or tries any effort to prove his claim, on the other hand, to justify his subjective claim, he keeps adding up furthermore illogical claims.
As for example, a cosmic soul supporter will say there’s a ghost in his room, you may search whole room and won’t find anything spooky, but that won’t confirm that ghost is just an illogical proposition for that irrational person and an agnostic will also not discard the idea of ghost because there is no evidence to disprove it as the subjective claimer will say that the ghost moved so swift from one place to other that it is impossible to see it or catch it. He will construct his story such that there could not be evidence that the ghost either exists or does not exist. Agnostics states that God can neither be proved nor be disproved.

And that is a truth god cannot be proved or disproved for two reasons. 1st> theists often adjusts their stories (as the arbitrary claimer can adjust the ghost story) to make it certain that there cannot be no contradiction for his existence, depicting and confirming the proposal that God exists but God’s existence cannot be tested, God exists without proof and no one can prove or disprove it. You can’t test god. You even cannot test soul then how can you test super soul?
2nd reason is theists generally exemplify God in illogical manner. First they will say God is formless and characterless (physical character) (Nirguna or Saguna) a being of infinite dimensions which exists in supernatural world and is away from the limits of cognizable reality. As a matter of fact, theism either have no meaning (because it is not provable or disprovable or even testable) or it is self-contradictory.

Now some people do have a lot of time and energy and they enjoys debates of theists and atheists etc. not all are interested in stories of Narnia Harry Potter, Ganesha, Krishna, Ghost Rider Spiderman etc.
For an objectivist atheism is not negation of god, but it is a confirmation of realism, of reason’s capability to know it, and of man’s aptitude to create sense for his own self.

Now a person can put forward varied kind of statements. A few are conclusive, supporting evidence, such as the earth is round, or air is a mixture of gasses including oxygen hydrogen and nitrogen, or sun is not solid but a fluid ball of hydrogen and helium one it was Constantine because of which Christianity gained success as a political religion while Constantine himself was a Pagan and he used religion for political hold. No one can deny them.
Some claims are not so conclusively supported by evidences, like, Prithvi raj Chauhan actually killed Moh. Ghauri, or Dinosaurs faced extinction due to an asteroid fall, or “Jack the ripper” was royal physician. In such cases, one may say “I cannot say if the claim is true or not”.

The science of Neo-Darwinism is not contentious; neither the theory nor the evidence. The implications of the hypothesis upset some religious groups who simply do not understand the scientific method, or choose to misunderstand it.
Even some creationists questions that why human are not evolving further.
As a matter of fact, it is just wrong to suggest that human are not evolving. We are evolving further although it may not be visible by normal eyes. Yet, evolution is fastest in current scenario which is driven by driven by exponential population growth and cultural shifts.

According to evolution, the species culture which grows slow are at disadvantage, while human have observed massive growth and the cultural and regional shifts has caused far more genetic mutations. Many of the new genetic adjustments are occurring around changes in the human diet brought on by the advent of agriculture, and resistance to epidemic diseases that became major killers after the growth of human civilizations.
As the anthropologist John Hawks says “We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals.”

Yet the studies of LD (linkage disequilibrium) suggests that there’s a strong record of skeletal changes that clearly show people became physically smaller, and their brains and teeth are also smaller. This is generally seen as a sign of relaxed selection — that size and strength are no longer a key to survival. Genetic changes are now being driven by major changes in human culture. In stead of changing or mutating on structure basis, now at least 7% of human genes have been registered as changed on natural selection causing Linkage Disequilibrium which is an evidence of positive selection and adaptation which is leading to disease resistance. As for example epidemic diseases such as malaria, smallpox and cholera began to dramatically shift mortality patterns in people. Malaria is one of the clearest examples, yet human evolved against it, there are now more than two dozen identified genetic adaptations that relate to malaria resistance, including an entirely new blood type known as the Duffy blood type.

Another recently discovered gene is CCR5 which originated about 4000 years ago. It was discovered recently because of its HIV/AIDS resistance abilities, yet it was adapted in human to resist the pathway of smallpox.
Darwin wrote in “Origin of the Species” about the challenges in animal breeding, he emphasized that herd size “is of the highest importance for success” because large population have more genetic variation, and human population is observing same genetic variations hence promoting positive selection and causing evolution at much faster rate than what it was some 5,000 years ago around the time of stone age.
It is so obvious that Magic and miracles doesn’t occur and we do not need any miracle too, because nature itself is miraculous!
~~~~paying a tribute to science, rationality and reality on 199th birthday of Charles Robert Darwin.

“One of the most constant characteristics of beliefs is their intolerance. The stronger the belief, the greater its intolerance. Men dominated by a certitude cannot tolerate those who do not accept it.” Henry St John Bolingbroke, 1st Viscount (1678-1751)

http://couplewriters.blogspot.com/p/about-us.html

“Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir”- Fredrick Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil).

In these words Nietzsche has so lucidly put across the inherent subjectivity in the various philosophical works. The inescapable link between memories and thoughts more so the cognitive personality of the philosopher on his philosophical works. An analysis of the philosopher behind any philosophy is an act of objective screening of thoughts from the very point of its origin, which is the philosophers mind itself. The process leads to a more objective deciphering and in depth analysis of thoughts. Nietzsche being my subject I would like to quote him again on the issue

“All philosophers have the common failing of starting out from man as he is now and thinking they can reach their goal through an analysis of him…Lack of historical sense is the family failing of all philosophers”- (Human All too Human).

Nietzsche son of a minister and a pious religious woman started off with extreme faith in Christianity and its theology. He in a very early age used to enjoying reading bible in seclusion and reciting it to others with extreme devotion and faith. Two major factors that led to him transgressing from this state of extreme religious faith to staunch atheism was the emergence of Darwinism in the field of biology and science and German Nationalism under the Iron hand of Bismarck. Darwinism destroyed his faith in Christian theology completely while German Nationalism under Bismarck which not only criticized piety and altruism among nation but also practiced Realpolitik. This Blood and Iron politics gave a new him a new definition if virtue based only on strengths and struggle. It in fact validated the struggle for existence as a universal virtue.

His faith was so vehemently obliterated that he declared God is dead: but considering the state the species Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown. To his faith his anguish can be seen in these words–

“I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and too petty—I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.” (Antichrist).

Annihilation of faith however left Nietzsche with many daunting questions about the fate and purpose of humanity. The Christian linear progression of time ending in Armageddon and kingdom of heaven meant nothing to him. His earlier works thus gave a naturalistic inclination where in he held evolution as the purpose in itself. In his work “thus spake Zarathustra” where in he held man kind as a transitory phase in the evolution of superman or Overman he wrote, Man is a rope, tied between beast and Superman—a rope over an abyss. The superman will mock at us like we mock the apes. (Nazis took this concept of superman and super race rather overzealously and embarked on their catastrophic mission)

Conception of superman was however not the end of his woe. It soon occurred to him that superman cannot be an end in himself. His conception of time was infinite, the question what after superman was his next challenge super-super man or God was not an answer because time was not ending at there also. The concept lived happily ever after was unacceptable to him. It is here that he realized perhaps that numbers of actions possible are finite while time infinite. It is thus he concluded that actions will start repeating itself the way day and night repeats itself; that every thing will return back to the chaos the primordial soup from where it started. It also however destroyed all sense of purpose that life can possibly hold everything was reduced to mere occurrences in the face of time. (It is not to be confused with eastern cyclic philosophy of birth and rebirth because eastern philosophy is far from destroying purpose in human life; it in fact gives purpose transcending life and death)
Nietzsche here achieved a cyclic redundancy in time for all occurrences and action leading ultimately to nothing.

I would love to discuss how such a brilliant mind was eaten away by the internal conflicts within his mind against the morality of his time. How it led to his neurosis and finally relegating him to schizophrenia cutting him off from reality…or perhaps returning him back to peace and tranquility.

How Idea of perfection came into being if nothing perfect ever existed?
The argument is logically correct for we can have knowledge of things which we are acquainted with. Direct or indirect, indirect in case of knowledge by description or by induction (logic). To start with let’s examine perfection as an idea. What exactly does it means to us? Perfection is not God but a quality attributed to God. So we can conclude that Perfection as an idea is a quality and not God itself. What is however more relevant is even for a quality to exist as an idea we must be acquainted with it, which is in fact the crux of the argument.

What is Perfection? Are we acquainted with it?

Can God exist as an Idea if not Real?

Well, we have discussed knowledge by acquaintance and induction/derivation but there remains knowledge by description. You have taken up an apt example 100 $ Note. Your knowledge of it is not by acquaintance but by description. If we were to limit ourselves only to knowledge that we ourselves get acquainted to or derive thereof, we would have never progressed so far. Knowledge by description how we share our knowledge, in fact I can further add that what cannot be described is not knowledge at all (limitation of language on description and thus our knowledge is another interesting topic on which James have elaborated). So we can conclude that we perhaps know God also as you know 100$ through description. Obvious question arising is that even the knowledge of description is indirectly knowledge of acquaintance. Somebody is acquainted with 100$ note and so has described it. Fortunately or unfortunately so is the case with the God. There are people who have claimed to have been acquainted with God. Prophets and Messiahs who have described God to us, knowledge of description the liberty lie with us to accept or reject an idea but as long as a single person exist who claims of such an acquaintance, God will exist.

Is all that exist real?

At this juncture I assume that we can agree God exists in human collective conscious as an idea for sure. Ideas are units of thought that are complete in it self. Ideas are to thought as sentences are to language. To examine if an idea is real or not we have to define what is real? I don’t confirm to idealist in this regard, my arguments against idealism as brought out by Russell in ‘Problems of philosophy’ are there in the post ‘On Reality’. Not all of reality however qualifies as absolute reality. There exists a lot of what we construe as reality which is subjective. Subjective reality does not ideally requisition any proof but an individual’s belief in it a trust on his own instincts intellect and senses. God again qualify as a subjective reality so does not requisition any proof in itself for those who believe will believe in it regardless of any argument against it.

God as a construct…

Assuming that God is an idea lets examine what would have led to its origin. What sustains it for no idea as doubtable as God can survive if it had no purpose no reason to exist? Human conscious as we can see is conditioned. What is the greatest pain of being conscious? Being aware but unable to control it, what our future holds for us is very dynamic set of probability where in lies our greatest fears and our greatest hope. I may die the very next moment or worse loose my limbs are a probability. On the other hand there are equally wonderful hopes that are equally probable. Our brains being a survival instrument prefers to dwell in hopes rather than fears. To achieve it needs conditioning a fear-hope conditioning where in I believe lays the reason for idea of God to exist. Hope is more often than not our belief that equations of probability will run in our favour. There are millions of people to whom the concept of God gives hopes and a reason to live. Research has shown that people with atheistic beliefs are more prone to depression than theist. The choice between an optimistic illusion and a pessimistic reality is a rather difficult one to make. From individualistic approach one need not worry as it’s a choice of the individual, let men decide what they want to believe. It is however a sad reality that there exists not many individuals, not many free minds, those who can decide for themselves.

As philosophers here we are facing an ethical question…On name of reality and reason are we justified to take away from the masses their hope. If intellectual reason is able to prove that God is indeed nothing but an illusion what do we achieve on the name of truth…is it worth it. There is a poem I would like to share

WHEN by my solitary hearth I sit,
When no fair dreams before my “mind’s eye” flit,
And the bare heath of life presents no bloom;
Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head.

Whene’er I wander, at the fall of night,
Where woven boughs shut out the moon’s bright ray,
Should sad Despondency my musings fright,
And frown, to drive fair Cheerfulness away,
Peep with the moon-beams through the leafy roof,
And keep that fiend Despondence far aloof.

Should Disappointment, parent of Despair,
Strive for her son to seize my careless heart;
When, like a cloud, he sits upon the air,
Preparing on his spell-bound prey to dart:
Chase him away, sweet Hope, with visage bright,
And fright him as the morning frightens night!

Whene’er the fate of those I hold most dear
Tells to my fearful breast a tale of sorrow,
O bright-eyed Hope, my morbid fancy cheer;
Let me awhile thy sweetest comforts borrow:
Thy heaven-born radiance around me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head!

Should e’er unhappy love my bosom pain,
From cruel parents, or relentless fair;
O let me think it is not quite in vain
To sigh out sonnets to the midnight air!
Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head!

In the long vista of the years to roll,
Let me not see our country’s honour fade:
O let me see our land retain her soul,
Her pride, her freedom; and not freedom’s shade.
From thy bright eyes unusual brightness shed—
Beneath thy pinions canopy my head!

Let me not see the patriot’s high bequest,
Great Liberty! how great in plain attire!
With the base purple of a court oppress’d,
Bowing her head, and ready to expire:
But let me see thee stoop from heaven on wings
That fill the skies with silver glitterings!

And as, in sparkling majesty, a star
Gilds the bright summit of some gloomy cloud;
Brightening the half veil’d face of heaven afar:
So, when dark thoughts my boding spirit shroud,
Sweet Hope, celestial influence round me shed,
Waving thy silver pinions o’er my head.
February, 1815.

(written by Rudraksh)