Friendly Arguments.

In the beginning, there was no nano microbiology or microbial cytology. Before microbial cytology was studied as a discipline, there was microbiology, and before that, we studied biology. The human race came to know more about the scientific or research field, such as microbial cytology, maybe after the 18th century. In the beginning, there was no biology too, and there was just science. In the beginning, there was no science too. There were philosophies and stories. Early such thoughts, stories, and customs paved the way for the religions and their scriptures. 

Ancient religious teachings, in some way, were ancient science and philosophy too. They taught about history, sky, earth, stars, the human journey, and various experiences that come along with it. Before such religious studies, they were just stories handed over to generations. Stories filled with the human wonder about the planets,  stars, and seasons helped the hunter-gatherers in their journey. And even before everything, in the beginning, there was just sound and a word.

Modern religions have many such ancient philosophical/scientific, time-tested pearls of wisdom, and some of them refused to evolve further in along with the time. For many centuries religions or castes were political parties, and they were part of the tribal or close-knit group identities. Expansionist forces and other powers structures within the world fought each other. Today we may look at those wars in the spectrum of religion. Instead, they were just an expression of power or a struggle for survival, whether it was the conquest of Alexander, Maurya, Genghis Khan, or the colonialists. Religions were linked with the identities of the kings, or the tribes , but those wars were not for the beliefs but for the power and wealth.

Today, I have seen a few in our circle who count the past wars and associate each such war with one religion or another and start counting the dead bodies. If one of the religions caused a few thousand less in their tally, they start asserting that faith is supreme compared to others. How bad is the faith that they went back in centuries to count the dead bodies to claim their religion as a better one? I wish such people were stuck in their time travel and never returned to my century. I left Facebook when many of my well-educated friends started vomiting fanatic poison all over the internet. We cannot think of any religion that is not part of mass murders in the modern world, whether Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity. All faiths are tainted; one is not better than the other. It is not the fault of the religion itself. It is the fault of the power enjoyed by the leaders, who use religion, the oldest political party, as a tool and mix it with their modern political power.

The teachings of modern religions originated from a specific time and a particular landscape and political environment. In a video, the anchor argued that atheistic governess culture had bought better progress in the world. I don't believe this is a valid argument. The footage suggested atheistic governance is the reason for the progress of the Scandinavian countries, is not exactly correct. In Norway, Until 2012, parliamentary officials were required to be members of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Norway. At least half of all government ministers had to be a member of the state church. As the state church, the Church of Norway's clergy were viewed as state employees, and the central and regional church administrations were part of the state administration. Members of the Royal family are required to be members of the Lutheran Church. On 1 January 2017, Norway made the Church independent of the state but retained the Church's status as the "people's church." Many communist countries could not progress much even though they didn't uphold a god or religion. One of the significant reasons for Chinese progress is - that it could become the factory of American corporates in a timely, efficient way. The concept of a progressive, social-democratic process is the key. In Scandinavian countries and Germany, the Church also was/is the major part of it. Bhutan has a better happiness index, though it is predominantly a Buddhist country. Everything is an idea, and religious views are an idea, so as atheistic/agnostic/view - also an idea, and we must uphold progressive views and scientific temper. 

Different views do not need to fight each other or do not need to convince each other. They need to work with empathy. Atheists deserve compassion, so as the religious and people of various religions- they deserve (maybe more) empathy. The idea of "The void of god" should not become a god, as it happened in some autocratic countries. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen said that development is freedom and empirically proved this in economics. When skills, knowledge, and ideas flow freely without fear, the nation will prosper. India's "ancient" caste system (one of the world's most extended slavery systems) was a barrier of fear. Historically, we had many other worries and obstacles that evolved into systemic behaviors that hindered human equality and progress.

Recently, a few commented that it is a problem in the scripture that a particular religion is not peaceful, and I disagreed with that. I ask whether any of the people from any religion hindered the doubter's day-to-day life? What prompted them to do such an inquisition? Also, my disagreement is considered a liberal view. Again, my question is, then can we consider an agreement as a conservative view? The propaganda machines and the one-liners and soundbites from the internet create a perception and biases that prompt one to find an answer in the scriptures to judge the millions. If the scripture makes a group of people mad, how can we justify the cruelty perpetuated by people of our religion? So is there a fault in our scriptures too? My point is it is not scriptures that make one mad, and we also need to question why we are searching for the answers in scriptures to blame a group of people when those didn't hurt us at all. The teachings of modern religions evolved from a specific time and a particular landscape and political environment. Scriptures are the root cause for the behaviors is a statement similar to Hollywood movies are the cause for violent behaviors. Indeed, we can find movie-inspired heists and criminal activities, but finding fault in movie industries for criminal-minded behavior is not correct. One also wonders why there are a lot of violence, lynchings, and discrimination in the so-called good scripture majority world. 

Some may need more time and space to grow and catch up to the rest. As the world democratizes further politically, it will get more space to unwind. Political revolutions and democratization have reformed many religious rigidities in the last few centuries. In today's world, political power decides the destinies of the religions. When the political power becomes conservative, crony, capitalistic and right-wing extremes, the religious groups also start behaving fanatically. European democratization reformed western Christianity. Indian freedom struggle has reformed the Hindu religion, caste, creed equations are challenged, and downtrodden start getting more acceptability in temples and festivals. Better democratization of the middle eastern kingdoms may reform Islam religion further. More recently, Ukrainian politics redefined the orthodox Church of Ukraine.

The other day, I watched the TV series  'Stranger Things' with my son. There was a scene where the Russian general and the strange thing. In the first and second seasons, the internal agencies are the selfish villains, and in the 3 rd season, it is Russian agencies. And my son asked this question - "Russians are bad. They created Nazis, right?" I said no, that is not correct. "Oh, the Germans," I have to correct again. They are also not bad. Nazis are a group of people within those countries, and such minded people are in all nations, but it can be dangerous when they get power. If we analyze these questions, there are blanket perceptions and judgments cultivated from a young age. We need to understand here that there can be similar perceptions on the other side. 

There are lynchings and calculated actions to ghettoize and instigate community in India. It doesn't mean All the Indians are wrong or the teachings of their scriptures are evil. There are teaching like - Goals justify the paths, an elite group of people from the head of the God and non-elites are from the legs, and many considered as outcasts. Such teachings are inherently violent. And we could find similar instructions in other religions too. Colonials killed many in the Americas (56 Million), and Jihadists killed many uttering scriptures. Hindu extremists in India attacked and killed many in India. There were Israeli atrocities on Palestinians and across. All these people considered the all mighty God is on their side, and somehow the victims didn't deserve God's mercy. To justify or legitimize their violent acts, they uttered the scriptures.

The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars but rather by its ability to prevent them. (- a quote from Gene Roddenberry) . As long as we cultivate empathy and do not judge people or put them in boxes of evil, the system works for the good. If not, there is no use of any scriptures. We cannot forget that the wealthy and powerful lobbies intelligently and constantly try to cultivate such perceptions and narrations. How to evade such perceptions and free ourselves from biases and wishful thinking is a process that needs careful effort.

Part 2

I agree with some of the points made by my friend, but I would like to caution, and I would like to question our perceptions of it.

"It is also true that these people in power do not represent the true religion, at least in India or the USA. That is the point I was bringing out, where some religions openly support relatively extremist thoughts and actions. However, most of the population does not support or practice such extremism." 

Caution 1 - "where some religions openly support relatively extremist thoughts" - Call some religious leaders rather than religion. In some cases we call it as fringes , in some cases we judge a group altogether, this can be a case of our biases.

Caution 2 - "However, most of the population does not support or practice such extremism." - In this case, it is not the fault of the religion itself, and most of the population lives peacefully. We should not be trying to find a spot in the scriptures, and such an exercise is somehow becoming an exercise from our side to justify our innumerable acts of violence and evil deeds. We should not be casting doubts on the entire group while majority lives in peace. Call the fringe elements again, that is how we give space. I agree that religious leaders have to refine and reform their learnings in the new context from time to time, and that is true for both sides.

Here is the situation - When a father is trying to correct the rebellious teen. The all-powerful father thinks he is guiding the kid to a better path. The kid thinks the father is just trying to enforce his teachings and practices. The father should approach it with kindness, space, and the willingness to co-exist peacefully. If he cannot do that, all his learnings of the long years, how pure they may be, are not worthful. Otherwise, give the kid to learn and evolve into an adult through his own experiences. If the all-powerful father cannot allow that and cannot co-exist peacefully, the father is evil. (I don't want to call as evil, but to point out that outcomes are not less than perilous)

When we call middle eastern kingdoms as dogmas, they may also consider us as another kind of dogmas run by corporate greed and conservative/religious lobbies trying to destroy their peace. They may argue that in Iraq and Afghanistan, the country's situation is not better after the war, decades of invasion, and millions of lives and displacements. Even the mighty US cannot help or interfere meaningfully with Palestinian concerns. Here we can also question the clarity and evilness of the intentions. Millions of expatriates work in the middle east, Turkey, Malaysia, and many other countries earn work and peacefully practice their religions.

"Such religions that can identify and self-correct within the establishment are great features. I wish that all religions do the same, but it is not true." I'm afraid I have to disagree here. (This goes back to caution 2). If Iran's regime has to reform, that should be our intention, and we should pursue options for peaceful co-existence. The moment we are trying to suffocate them, we might be doing the bad; we might be evil. We might be not giving them the space to reform, and maybe a reformed Iran is not our intention. In many ways, colonialists were more dogma-driven than the current world, convinced themselves with the backing of scriptures they were purifying the Americas, and in that process, killed 56 million. I consider all religions are on the same plate; they cannot reform the religious leadership without political reforms. These self-correcting religious majority-driven groups and countries also caused many killings and violence in the last century and the current one. It is not at all less than the other side. So this self-correction does not bring any good. Not so-self correcting (In our perception) is also not doing any worse than the self-correcting world. Originally religion was just another scientifical/philosophical/political structure or solution of olden times that came into place to resolve a problem of a specific period, a specific struggle of a limited landscape. As time passed, it evolved into many branches.

In today's world, I consider the power of the religions to reform humanity to be even less. In the olden era, it was very much intermixed with political leadership, and nowadays, it is just another tool in the hands of political leadership. Reforms must be through political and social platforms; maybe religion can be a tool in that process. 

War is never between good and evil; it is between the evilest and the less evil. - Stephan Nedumpally. https://www.murmursofvitraya.life/2019/05/an-illuminati-story-lucifer.html

https://www.murmursofvitraya.life/2020/11/an-imaginary-ride-through-dividing-and.html

I'm questioning my perceptions and biases, it has changed in the last five years, and they may change again in another five years.

Annex :

I love my father, and he also loves me. I called him അപ്പാ. Many told me I looked like him. As a kid, I thought my father had all the powers to change things, bring me anything. As I grew up, I still loved my father, and he still loved me. When I grew up, I realized more about his love and sacrifices, which made me happy and brought me peace and closer to my father. But I also discovered he doesn't have all the power, he is not that almighty, but he will do all things in his might for me. We both loved each other, and we still love each other.