Dear Gwen,

Religions do not perhaps change with respect to environment. You would find many examples of religions changing course. It had happened to all religions. But ultimately, the main theme behind religions has remained the same since the beginning. The different concepts of the Creator can not perhaps change with reference to environment.

Old adage: Helmintheistic fishing rites must needs open many cans of worms.

Let's open a can of platyhelminths to start. Societies are hermaphrodites. How's that for a grand opening? In honor-based societies the female gender takes responsibility for the dignity of culture, where the male moiety attends to all things pertinent to honor which, depending on the sub-cultural type, might imply patriarchal organization, a warrior caste and a vertical hierarchy in authority (read 'authoritarian'), and a religion that reflects these social traits, oftentimes not because the religion requires them theologically but because it helps the society identify with the religion, which then tends both to be inflexible, authoritarian and proselytizing. When the adherents sell the religion to outsiders on the basis of a putative doctrine of peace, they should not wonder why some few look askance or askew.

At the dignity-based end, the gentler half expresses cultural honor, typically in matters of ethics considered invaluable to culturally accepted moral objectives that will be in turn acceptable to dignity-based legal constructs; the testosterone moiety attend to this legal business (in which profession the inclusion of women into the concept of dignity has modified matters, hopefully adding their ethical prerogatives in the form of enhanced equity jurisdiction), where principles reflected in famous adages or practices - 'society of laws, not men' and 'innocent until proven guilty - are distinctly dignity-based since they rule out status (the honor-based role as also observed by H. S. Maine). Not that they necessarily practice what they preach, as they assuredly do not.

When an honor-based religion of the sort that is taken to reflect core cultural traditions meets a dignity-based society with a dignity-based religion, one will perforce understand where Samuel Huntington should have been coming from to adopt his 'clash of civilizations' thesis.

The host country expects a degree of 'assimilation' which Muslims are just as often wont to deny; the host country if dignity-based will typically be opportunized by the honor-based religion in the effort to secure a foothold and rise in stature, whence Muslims have been not a little active in pestering governments for absolutistic religious prerogatives such as are enjoyed/accepted in an authoritarian milieu back home. In all, Islamic newcomers make rather a nuisance of themselves and thus risk ill-will with the host population. Nothing, and certainly no argument will persuade the fundamentalistic sorts on the Islamic side to relent or otherwise back off from their demands. The dignity-based rule is reflected in an ancient, perhaps Roman, saying: When in Rome do as the Romans'.

Of course many see the adage as referring to travelers and visitors, not to permanent fixtures. But the point of the adage happens also to reflect long-standing legal traditions in dignity-based countries. Thus while these same societies value freedom of religion, they also maintain a history of policies that discourage fundamentalistic opportunism such as burning bibles, korans, and what have you given the inflammatory character (not unlike yelling fire in a crowded theater). And where such rules do not exist they certainly should.

Toleration, another item fostered in dignity-based moieties, leaves religiously-oriented groups to isolate themselves without molestation, whence Muslims congregate in a few areas and likewise the Amish, for example. This arrangement ultimately allows the maximum religious expression, which is of course why the aggregation is so tempting to begin with.

But when any sect is in the general public (ergo non-Muslim), as at the workplace, for example, dignity-based traditions, no less than honor-based equivalents, should not be sacrificed to any religion unless to all equally. If Muslims want to maximize prayer while at work they will do so during assigned breaks. End of discussion. If for any reason Muslim women's garments are found overly antagonizing, they will be required to modify the outerwear as in France.

Now I feel better prepared (and having satisfied a seeming lust for prolixity) I can address two questions, 1) should artificial legal or quasi-legal means be employed to further miscegenation (note I do not say 'assimilation')?, and 2) can change occur spontaneously from environmental influence, and if so, how?

Since my answer to the first is to a great degree contingent on the second, there I shall begin. We naturally expect honor-based religionists to address this question in the negative (see the above comment, as a picture-perfect example). Of course it is wrong. Such statements are thinly veiled attempts to indicate that religion is what it is, so don't be tampering with it. Every particular is a synecdoche, and so on and so forth. Dignity-based religions just as naturally reply in the affirmative.

In Christianity, fundamentalists were especially loath to acknowledge homosexuality, not in principle because of anything about the practice, but because the Good Book saith so. But to a rational person, the Book reflects as much of honor-based cultural tendencies as dignity-based theology. When Christians discovered from the environment of scientific information that homosexuals were 'made that way' and did not come (except kicking and screaming - mainly crying) to it through willing choice, the attitudes and then the doctrine were gradually loosened. Women are entering the clergy and gays can become Bishops.

As for the honor-based religions, let's take Islam since it's on the radar. Authoritarian honor-based cultures have a marked tendency to permit an elite group to insulate themselves and live more or less by their own standards, which for some Arab moieties includes wine, women, partying and lord only knows what else -- Oh boy I do know something else -- homosexuality as per Sir R. Burton and a bevy of anthropologists). Now lets just be realistic for a moment. If an elite can so fulsomely modify the script, who is there to tell me with a straight face that the outer practices cannot be changed via environment without risk to the core?

The first question seems to me best approached from the typological view advanced here. Why? It tells us what we can expect from the society as a whole, as also from sectors within it. Cultural habits have to be respected unless one intends to change not only the appurtenances of religion but the culture into the bargain (though if that can be managed it solves the religious problems at the same time). As that is not on this menu, modification in religious ritual (easier to nudge than the rites) is best done where antagonism is necessarily avoided, the guide being experience and theory together. The second arm, inherent to dignity-based and easily enough adopted by honor-based, is a live-and-let live posture where incoming religious groups can settle together and fully exercise religion subject to controls in the public.

While legal/quasi-legal approaches such as incorporation can and sometimes will work, honor-based religions in particular will not appreciate being tampered with and may opportunize the method should they agree to accept it, whence the result might end up worse than the cause. Recall the amazing ability of ideologues to opportunize dignity-based freedom and opportunities in the quest to evolve a terror plot. Giving any honor-based religion an excuse to take religion seriously is in my view bound to backfire at some point. I believe there are enough culture-based mechanisms that law can support that will achieve the desired ends given time and patience.

Speaking of which, I thank the reader for patience. (Louis and Bello: I will be scrutinizing. Be mindful and well as thoughtful pls.)

Dear Gwen,

I would like to mention one point. Budhism was founded in India. It got accepted in East Asia, South East Asia, and countries such as Sri Lanka and erstwhile Tibet. But in course of time, it could not be a major religion in India itself.

Indeed, Lord Budha was accepted in Hinduism as one of the ten avatars of Lord Vishnu. This perhaps was the reason why Budhism could not flourish in the country in which it was founded.

Thank you, Hemanta! Now that you have mentioned that strange fact, I recall that I had read this in a book by Ninian Smart some years ago, but failed to process it properly so that it became part of my knowledge. Two great religions founded in the same country is just so unbelievable that I had (and still have) difficulty processing it. The world is strange; there is so much that one cannot grasp relying just on intellect. Nevertheless, I am grateful to you for putting this back on my agenda of things to ponder. Gwen

If Gwen you refer to her 'Religious Experience of Mankind', your memory of it far exceeds my own. But I recall being stupendously impressed by her, so picked her from the shelf to see if I could find a gem pertinent to the thread, and saw this, which is another indication that honor-based religions (properly their followers) can be influenced by the environment.

"Various social groups within the four great classes began during the classical period to harden into castes based on craft, religious and other affiliations. Thus very often allegiance to Shiva or to Vishnu was determined socially rather than as a matter of individual religious choice" (2nd ed, 144).

She also mentions the evident disposition of the Indians to accept many pathways to truth. This, in an honor-based system both of culture and religion is not common, and is rather expected of a dignity-based society. But the result has been, or so I have thought, that individuals possess a very independent (for themselves at the very least) sense sense of inner authority characteristic of dignity-based social units. I have always looked on India as a nation in which religion and philosophy are related as Shankara related of atman with Brahman.

As Smart also notes, the many religious segments got along peaceably, which is also to be expected of a dignity-based approach. I have always been tempted to wonder if, given that it is the honor-based far more than the other type that respond in realpolitik formulations with the very real world presented to them by population and religious variety, that a hard-nosed and uber-intelligent result in such a situation is indeed to develop a dignity-based mechanism of coping, and says still more toward the capacity of the environment to work for the betterment of tolerance within a society.

Of course, it is also a lesson in relations between religion and the bedrock society. Tolerance of living together and of belief systems there assuredly is, but not many ancient honor-based traits could be fully meliorated, as for example the problems caused by the caste system itself, or the hiding of their serious HIV problem, etc. Still, the news from India is very positive and with what she has had to deal with I suspect authoritariansm and corruption will finally be tackled one day, hopefully soon.

Dear Gwen,

I think, I should like to inform one more point that you might not know. In the Northern Indian States, in some Hindu families, if there are two sons, one of them takes Shikhism, and they live as one family. I hope, you have by now understood what religion means in India.

Dear Ayaz and Gwen,

Without actually taking active part in the original question, I am supplying certain information regarding what religion means to Indians in certain pockets. Among the Bodo people residing in Assam, India, it is easy to find families in which one brother is Hindu, one is Christian, and one is Sikh! This is not however seen in other parts of India.

Fascinating. Thank you for that, Hemanta.

Hemanta, I am simply amazed. This means that one cannot talk of "ascribed religious identity" in the context of India since for us sociologists (who love neat categories in examining phenomena), unity of religious identity within the family unit is assumed and -- for that matter --unity within a national culture is implied with only subcultures deviating. Honestly, Hemanta, I don't know where this leaves me in terms of my Don Quixote role of slaying "dominant Christian cultures which are inhospitable to polytheistic religions such as Hinduism" (See, any one of Gwen's works).

So, Hemanta, while you are wrecking havoc with my theories, please give me your opinion on the accuracy of the following quote from THE STATE OF RELIGION ATLAS (O'Brien and Palmer,1993), which I use in ABSOLUTELY everything I write:

"In both Islam and Hinduism, the notion that religion is separate from life is unthinkable. In many states Islam describes itself as a way of life rather than as a faith; and Hinduism as a term of reference to a 'faith' is something of an external creation. The name was introduced by the Persians to describe all beliefs in India - across the River Indus. Hindus themselves see what they believe as being how they live. There is no sense of one set of beliefs for everyday life and another for religious life. Judaism is also particular, since it is both a way of life and an ethnic identity - not always linked to religious belief or practice."

Please, please, Hemanta, confirm that the foregoing statement provides an accurate description of Hinduism!

And to Mohammad Ayaz Amad: Would you agree with the generalization being made about Islam?

Gwen

Dear Gwen,

Whatever I have gathered from your post is a dreaded suggestion in the guise of neo-liberalism which any orthodox Christian can plate to others. Why are you so afraid of “others”? Are you afraid like the people in UK who think that one day nonwhites shall overwhelm the whites? After all, what is that you are afraid of? If it is culture (including religion and relate practices, social organisation and institutions, political organisation and institutions, unjust economic and income distribution etc.), please note that strong culture and practices always survive in different forms. Note that most of the humanity in the past did not have something like divorce, but its necessity was recognised to lessen human sufferings and most nations against their religious ethics legalised it. People in the West consider themselves leader rather masters of the world and its resources and onward looking with “a dignity-based society with a dignity-based religion”, if they are so, they need not to be afraid of “others”, others latter or sooner will be assimilated in your culture. Fear is sign of weakness. If you are weaker in any respect to “others” it is your turn to overhaul your system that none is discriminated and you survive with your strong cultural, social, economic and cherished political values rather than asking “others” to become part of your system. If others are at unease in the West they should return to their respective nations and live there with ups and downs of their nation. I would like to die with my culture, values and with my nation of hunger instead of earning promised million dollars in the West compromising what I have been handed down. It may look like a static outlook/worldview, hostile to change, not at all. To me one wants change for better not for worse.

Dear Gwen,

As far as your observation or knowledge of Islam as " the notion [very clear thought] that religion is separate from life is unthinkable. In many states Islam describes itself as a way of life rather than as a faith. Yes Muslim call their religion, Islam as "deen" which means way of life.

Dear Ayaz,

It is for you that "he [Allah] is present everywhere" does not hold in Islam. It was a theory of Mujaddid Alaf Sani Surhindi against Sufis who believed in non-duality, otherwise no Muslim except few in India believes in an omnipresent God. Allah is Samee'un (all hear), baseer'un (omniscient) aleem'un (all knowing), but nowhere is mentioned that Allah is shahd'un (omnipresent). It is neither Allah's name, nor it is told to us that God is omnipresent. You know well that Allah is beyond space-time because any thing that exists in time and space has to extinct.

Re:

"If you are weaker in any respect to 'other' it is your turn to overhaul your system that none is discriminated and you survive with your strong cultural, social, economic and cherished political values rather than asking ;'others' to become part of your system."

Hi Firoz,

Although you appear to have misunderstood my position, you have succinctly stated the essence of my research interest which is the incorporation of non-Christian migrants into the predominantly Christian Western immigrant host nations. However, my concern is not with keeping a predominantly Christian culture with its "cherished political values" intact. My concern is whether it is possible to keep the transplanted culture (the "new" immigrant religion) intact so that it can be transmitted undiluted to the next generation. My feeling is that only by keeping transplanted religions intact within our society will the U.S. become a truly pluralistic society. A multi-religious society requires more than diversity of religious beliefs; it requires that those who believe differently ("the other" as you so succinctly phrased it) are allowed to freely practice their religious beliefs even though they are non-conforming practices in the host country. The question at the top of this thread asks whether I am wrong in arguing that transplanted religions should be allowed to remain intact in a new socio-cultural environment -- in other words I am seeking input on my thesis.

Thus, you are correct that I am inquiring whether "the other" can become part of U.S. society (what you term the U.S. "system"); however, I am asking whether this can be done without strings being attached. Can Muslims remain Muslims in the U.S. or must they become secularized Muslims -- that is the issue. And, I find it an important issue since my thesis is that much of what masquerades as secularism in the U.S. is "secularized Christianity." So, you see, Firoz, I would agree that our "system" is in need of an "overhaul" and, as a lawyer, I propose that it be done by rooting out "secular laws with religious claws".

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on one's point of view, the U.S. earned its reputation for being hospitable to ALL religions by welcoming different sects of Christianity. It is only since the post-1965 arrival of non-Western, non-Christian immigrants to our shores that our mettle is being tested. (In 1965 U.S. immigration laws were changed to end the preference for European immigrants.) I develop my thesis, which is too complex to do justice to in this short post, in my doctoral dissertation ("LEGISLATIVE TERRORISM; a Primer for the Non-Islamic State") which you can access on RG. (RG Scholar Chris Jeynes wrote a critical review of my doctoral thesis and it should be read along with my dissertation; I have posted it on RG and it has thus far been downloaded as often as my dissertation, which is as it should be.)

Firoz, if you are not willing to devote a lot of time to gleaning my thesis, you can read "Sorry But It's the Law; the Westernization of Islam" which I have also posted on RG. I look forward to your becoming a regular contributor to my questions on RG; you give the kind of spirited response that lets me know you are vested in the subject matter.

Gwen

Dear Gwen,

Once again, without actually entering into the debate, let me supply another information about Hinduism. Perhaps, you would get my reply herein!

Hinduism is divided into five different sects. They are : followers of (1) Lord Vishnu, (2) Goddess Parvati, (3) Lord Siva, (4) Lord Ganesha and (5) Lord Kartikeya. However, broadly all followers of any of these five sects are Hindus. It is not that any of the sects does not recognize any other of the sects. What I mean is that a follower of Lord Ganesha say, would not hesitate to enter into a temple of Goddess Parvati, say.

I wasn't asked per se but that hasn't stopped me from addressing interesting questions. I just don't want to be thought rude interjecting prior to the others taking on the question Gwen just raised.

When a religion is described as ‘a way of life’ the term ‘faith’ is automatic, and the chance of it failing to meet accuracy on closer examination is very slight. It is excessively difficult to entertain the notion that Arab societies treat Islam as other than a faith, ergo, the way and regularity of living life. Apart from the ‘way of life’, another clincher that a religion is a faith comes when the religious tenets are scarcely separate from the body of philosophy covering much the same terrain if in a different way. Thus Hinduism and Judaism are, to the extent philosophical (the latter ethically oriented within that denomination), identifiable as faiths.

Islam, of course, is not uniform. Weintraub says this, speaking of Indonesia/Malaysia: “Islam is a religion but there is also a popular culture, or popular cultures of Islam that are mass mediated, commercialized, pleasure-filled, humorous, and representative of large segments of society” (Islam and Popular Culture in Indonesia and Malaysia, Routledge, 2011, cover). It becomes much more difficult to ascribe ‘faith’ to this kind of description.

Though Judaism is identified strongly with ethnicity (which they see more culturally than genealogically/genetically) it would be more correct to say that the religion owns the ethnicity, not the other way around – a counter-intuitive notion for most of us. By that I mean that Jews are members of a family under a family dispensation. The ethnicity grew as a species from a genus by inbreeding. But it is no less clan/family today than two thousand years ago. Thus while difficult, it is hardly impossible for a non-ethnic to become a full Jew. It is far more common for Jews to renounce the religion and often also the ethnicity, the latter done to spite the former.

The problem in applying the locution ‘dominant Christian culture’ is that, as with Judaism, sub-groups can amount practically to distinct religious entities, the fault line movement between variant degrees of toleration registering embarrassingly high on the Richter scale. Compare the secular once-a-year churchgoers at Easter tolerance for the existence (let’s assume not next door) of polytheists in, say, St. Augustine Florida with the tolerance of some (not all) fundamentalistic sects (which also, not surprisingly, happen to be culturally honor-based and compel their religious beliefs to follow that trend). Given the size of this latter group one can be forgiven for thinking that America Christians disapprove polytheists. Of course, living in the same country isn’t the same as agreeing with their dogma, but that isn’t really what is at issue here if I am not mistaken.

The majority Christian populations as a whole, with due regard for sub-group differences, will nonetheless tend to frame their attitudes – which by principle favor toleration – in accordance with reality on the ground. If that reality lends itself to tolerance, then tolerance there shall be. If the reality places frictions or competitions between religious groups, there will be less tolerance. Especially in dignity-based groups the environment is a major factor. The honor-based groups will often struggle against the environmental factor in search of purity, and the extent to which they do that will depend both on the sub-type (loud/quiet) and the type of religion/faith. Nature religions have been far more apt to tolerate homosexuality, for example (Amerindians).

I would note also that the xenophobia to certain Muslims comes far and away more from honor-based types both secular and religious. Nor do I see any reason to believe that the same isn’t roughly the case for most forms of discrimination. Because the discrimination gets loud, as in a squeaky axle, it is only natural to associate the discrimination with the whole as a generality of varying faithfulness.

Based on this I have to admit that your (Gwen) use of, and reliance on, that locution 'dominant Christian culture' must be presuming elements of society that I am not factoring in. Somehow I feel sort of lost in following you here, maybe I am out of context and should dip into some of your work to be more adept at a faithful understanding of your positions.

"The question at the top of this thread asks whether I am wrong in arguing that transplanted religions should be allowed to remain intact in a new socio-cultural environment -- in other words I am seeking input on my thesis.!

Gwen

If by 'transplanted religions' you mean religion sprouting in "locations other than their natural habitat", I should say, Islam may not accept of this designation even for the U.S at the moment. Sociologically, we must acknowledge the 'birthplace' of most religions. Also, we are bound by the same discipline to acknowledge that the subject matter of sociology is not static. If by moving, Muslim populations (Islam) appear on the shores of countries in the West (apparently leaving the East), that does not mean that Islam has been 'transplanted.' What it does mean really is that Muslims, who do know the consequencies of moving to a new abode, have found new places. That they may be "compelled" to adopt modifications to religious tenents is a consequence that they apparently accept and will have to deal with within established religious principles.

I appreciate your scholarship. However on the subject of Islam, you may wish to move beyond THE STATE OF RELIGION ATLAS (O'Brien and Palmer,1993) if only to "move out more"! You will certainly find material that explains how Islam (Islamic law) deals with Muslim response to contemporary issues. And forgive me, I am not running away from giving you direct references, I will - when you say you are unable to find one!

Thanks, Charles, I think you have a good grasp of my position with the exception that "dominant Christian culture" does not imply uniformity of culture among the various Christian sects as that is not essential to my thesis (or even supported by my thesis). My argument is based upon those that can fit under the broad "Christian" umbrella and those who cannot without seriously altering their religious practices (the "clash of cultures" or in my own terminology “coerced isomorphism of immigrant religions”). A trite but important example of what I am talking about is the fact that Sunday worship and Sunday as a day off is ingrained in Christian culture; this presents tensions for those who are not Sunday but Friday or Saturday worshippers and vice versa ("Try to get a cab in Manhattan on Friday evening" is an expression that has grown out of the reality of an abundance of Muslim taxi drivers in Manhattan). Of course the U.S. “Sunday Closing” laws have always been problematic for Jewish shopkeepers who have typically closed their shops from Friday evening through Saturday in honor of the Sabbath and then in Sunday-Closing-Law jurisdictions are forced to also keep them closed on Sundays. However, Jews have been such a small minority in the U.S. that they are easily ignored -- even to the extent of scheduling high stakes tests in terms of college admissions (like the SAT's) on Saturdays. However, this is another and very detailed story which you, Charles, can read about in my paper on RG "Not Christian, but Nonetheless Qualified; The Secular Workplace - Whose Hardship".

Now, to Hemanta:

Yes, Hemanta I am quite familiar with the ability of Hindus – at least in America -- to adopt a Pan-Hinduism in their U.S. “Indian Cultural Centers" (which incidentally qualify for the favorable tax treatment accorded to eleemosynary organizations under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code). I engaged in 2+ years of participant observation among Hindus here in Northern New Jersey as part of the field research for my doctoral dissertation. Indeed it is this unbelievable tolerance among Hindus for "different shades of gray" that led me to subscribe to the O'Brien and Palmer quote cited in an earlier post as unimpeachable truth worthy of citing in all of my works. (An absence of boundaries, to me, is consistent with Hindus not thinking of Hinduism as merely a religion.) In fact, one of my close Hindu friends, -- now American, but originally from South India (Kerala) – used to help me along with my field research by regularly inviting me to her home for satsangs ("Hindu worship services" ?) where most of the worship hour was devoted to admiration of the hugging saint Amma (Mata Amritanandamayi), whom my friend was so devoted to that she got Amma to perform the wedding ceremony for her son and his wife here in the U.S. . Hence, my suspicions that “religion” is too narrow a concept to encompass Hinduism are also bolstered by the easy acceptance of any number of gurus within the Hinduism fold.

Gwen

"My argument is based upon those that can fit under the broad "Christian" umbrella and those who cannot without seriously altering their religious practices (the "clash of cultures" or in my own terminology “coerced isomorphism of immigrant religions”.

Ah, that's what I needed to hear.

Odd that markets haven't long since evolved a tidy way around the taxi on Friday problem. After all, from an economic perspective, it isn't really the Muslims that are the problem, but that no one has filled the evident vacuum on a night when one might suppose heavy demand. Perhaps my Friday assumption is not valid...

I'm as amazed to hear that Sunday Closing laws even exist as I was to realize the existence of an elitist and entirely anti-democratic system of electing council members (voted down just this year) in Austin.

Will read that paper after clearing the last of the eggnog cookies from my plate.

Charles, could you send me the recipe for eggnog cookies? I'm having Thanksgiving Dinner at my place and would like to impress my guests with something novel. I've never heard of eggnog cookies. Or, could you perhaps be drinking so much eggnog that you are slurring your adjectives; i.e., did you mean to say, "the last of the eggnog AND cookies"?

Gwen

Hilarious...It was a neologism. Couldn't think of anything to semiotically tie egg nog to a plate. But thanks for letting me know that egg nog ice cream (two half-gallons in the freezer) is probably where it all ends...

Dear Gwen

Hinduism is not a religion, it is a culture. That is what I have been trying to explain. Hinduism assumes that everyone is born as a Hindu. Later on, one accepts some other religion.

In fact, there is perhaps just one Creator; we have given Him different names! Call rose by any name; it will smell as sweet!

Re: "Hinduism is not a religion, it is a culture" -- Hemanta

Yes, Hemanta, that is what has been lurking in the back of my mind and it explains the seeming anomaly you brought to light of having a combination of Christian, Sikh, and Hindu siblings in the same Bodo household. And, understanding Hinduism as a culture -- not a religion -- captures the essence of what O'Brien and Palmer (forgive me, Bello, for offending your erudite research standards) meant by stating:

“Hinduism as a term of reference to a ‘faith’ is something of an external creation. The name was introduced by the Persians to describe all beliefs in India - across the River Indus. Hindus themselves see what they believe as being how they live” (1993).

More illustrative, this explains why my dear friend Prema Kurien (a ’Hindu’ Christian), Founding Director of Asian/Asian American Studies at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, can write so knowledgeably about the consistencies and inconsistencies of the development of “American Hinduism”. Of course, Prema has Hindu detractors – those who express their disdain on the internet -- for the simple reason that she is a Christian writing about the transplantation of Hinduism to the Diaspora. Nonetheless, Prema’s work is solid and she has phenomenal insight from having grown up in India as an adherent to what constitutes a minority religion there. Like myself, she is a qualitative sociologist. Here is a short list of her award-winning work, some of which you may enjoy reading:

Book Awards:

2003Book Award, Asia and Asian American section, American Sociological Association -: Kaleidoscopic Ethnicity: Internation Migration and the Reconstruction of Community Identities in India, Rutgers University Press, 2002.

2009 Honorable Mention, Sociology of Religion section, American Sociological Association -

A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduism. 2007.

Article Awards:

2005 Distinguished Article Award, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion -

“Multiculturalism and Ethnic Nationalism: The Development of an American Hinduism” Social Problems, 2004, Vol 51 (3): 362-385.

2013 Research paper award, Asia and Asian American section, American Sociological Association --

“Decoupling Religion and Ethnicity: Second-Generation Indian American Christians" Qualitative Sociology 2012, 35(4):447- 468.

And, Hemanta, more important for my purposes, Prema is an excellent cook. At my request, she is bringing 3 of her Indian specialty dishes to my place on Thanksgiving. I will discuss “Hinduism as a culture” with her on Thanksgiving Day and send you a note (privately) about her take on utilizing this perspective to gain deeper sociological insight.

Gwen

Dear Gwen,

I am sorry to be harsh or rude to you. I don’t want to questions anyone’s perceptions or premises. Immediate provocation to me has been your post that appeared to me resounding of the concerns of the Westerners in Europe and America as demand to revise Qur’an or adopt Western culture. Culture and religion are matter of one’s choice and by nature, humans are attracted which appeal to them most and address their concerns in those contexts. Cultures or religions cannot be imposed. While that stronger culture always win over people as a historian (portraying a prototype Muslim wielding sword in one hand and Qur’an in the other -inculcated picture of Muslims from childhood in the West) puts it “where swords of Muslims could not win, their religion won” referring to conversion of Mongols to Islam and these converted Mongols destroyed the army of their brethren which has been returning to their hearth with the resolve to get rest and strength their army and go back to destroy the Grand Masjid of Mecca (like some army officers in the US army think if there is terrorist attack, destroy Mecca and Medina by missiles and reduce Islam to a cult). But, Islam won the hearts of barbaric Tatars. Europeans and Americans who boast of tolerance and restraint and their democracies (“Christian populations as a whole, with due regard for sub-group differences, will nonetheless tend to frame their attitudes – which by principle favour toleration”) are so tolerant that they do not want to watch minarets of masjids among them, they cannot tolerate niqab/hijab taking it as symbol of women slavery while it is required by the religion. If Muslim women of their own volition want to live in burqa/niqab/hijab exercising their democratic right of descent dress of their choice is denied in the so-called European democracies. Even people working there are spied in wash rooms whether they cleanse themselves using toilet paper or water. If observed to use water they are fired from job. Is it democratic?

Further, as discussed in another thread Islam is not a very strict culture. It puts minimum of cultural limits with respect to dress, art, festivals etc. and expect good behaviour from its adherent in society. It does not deny rights of people to practise their local cultural rituals and traditions with the condition that should not be in contradiction to faith and its purpose (to establish pure monotheism and eradicate tyranny, suppression etc. of cultural, economic, social – social stratification- or political). Extremity in religion is not liked by the Prophet of Islam [PBUH]. One should perform every required duty to Allah and Its creature in a simple and easiest manner without suffering oneself or harming others in the process.

Islam is not a static religion or way of life. It is for all people for all times to come. Conditions and situations may vary over space (among communities) and through time, therefore, it is upto Muslims that without compromising what they are clearly told and sprit and purpose of Islam may adopt ways and means that they not only solve the problem confronted with but also don’t become nuisance to others.

It is why plurality of culture is observed among Muslims in different parts of the world. In this sense Islam provide a larger framework within which one can fill colour without compromising fundamentals.

No democracy in the world is as plural as ours (Indian). It is not to say that Muslims do not face problems in India. They do. All communities have lived as a unified nation through centuries. Our problems are not those created by our way of living or others’ way of living. Our problems are created by politicians for political mileage in election. If communities together solve one inter-community problem, they create another. True plurality and toleration is manifested by democratic people and maintained by the nation not by politicians of any hue.

Now I get it! "Be expected to change" would appear to be the functional phrase in the question of this thread.

Now one may ask, why not? Why should 'transplanted religions . . . ' not be expected to change in the socio-cultural milieu of it's new environment? So, yes, all 'transplanted religions' should be expected to change - it is naturally the nature of the change that must become an issue.

I emphatize with the sentiments of Khan in respect to the particular religion of Islam. Muslims will live anywhere and do know how to adopt. The activities of some umbrella Islamic organizations in the U.S only underscores the understanding of such groups of their rights within the conceptual territorial entity known as the United States of America. But, yes, any religion finding itself within 'hostile' environment will change (should be expected to change). But how should the change manifest?

Bello

Hi Firoz,

Thank you for taking the time to explicitly set forth what your bones of contention are in terms of the unwillingness of the West to accept an Islam that is not filtered through a screen fashioned after a Western Christian mindset/worldview (and all that this entails in terms of value judgments made and legitimation hurdles raised). Firoz, much of the historical and doctrinal information that you provide is over my head since I am not a scholar of religion, but a sociologist of religion and culture. Nonetheless, I am in agreement with what I understand to be your gripe.

However, I must note that it is unfair to expect those in the West who have not lived with the type of deep religious diversity that has existed in India for eons to immediately fall into step with religious pluralism. Nations that have had years to grapple with creating space for divergent views of the sacred are at an advantage in this global age of migrating peoples, especially when compared with the West where non-Christian immigrants have only recently (within the last 30 or 40 years) reached a critical mass within these Western societies. Nonetheless, being predominantly democratic nations (just like India), Western nations can and will rise to the challenge.

Also, I wish to point out that much of my scholarship this year has dealt with the difficulties experienced by the democratizing nations in Central and Eastern Europe in meeting the challenge of welcoming the "new" immigrant religions within their respective borders as part of their newly resurfaced (post-Russian dominance) religious landscape. Indeed, a workshop that I attended in September in Sarajevo took advantage of the unique experience of that multi-religious country to start a dialogue with the other countries in the European region about how to become receptive to varying and divergent religious voices. The call for papers to that workshop is informative in terms of stating the intentional deliberations that went into selecting Sarajevo as the workshop site:

"In Bosnia and Herzegovina ["BiH"] there has been a long experience of coexistence of different faiths but a historic and cultural developments were such that today the civil society is still in the process of formation, and even more so in terms of faith based organizations (FBOs). A presence of 'European Islam' in BiH which since the Ottoman and Habsburg periods has been strongly associated with the State is also an interesting phenomenon worth consideration by the Western European countries. Issues of balancing between the civil society ethics, religious commitments and beliefs, religious communities and the common good of all are to be subtly discussed and analyzed.

"Therefore this consultative workshop is meant to bring together members of these religious traditions, scholars and activists and offer them an opportunity for a joint platform for dialogue and exchange of experiences present in different countries in this regard."

Gwen

Hi Mohammad ,

All cultural form change over time and those that do not change are in big trouble. Islam is a huge umbrella including all kind of islamic forms. They are various since they have adapted to all kind of local cultures. Islam have come to India a while back and has adpated in different ways to the living in India. One of the most pervading cultural trait of India is the hierarchisation of the society through castes. This is a fundamental aspect of all forms of Induism. Although Islam has no official built-in caste system, is this cultural trait of Hinduism has influenced in some manner the muslins of India? Are they caste free?

Unfortunately, in some parts of India, caste and such other meaningless matters are still given importance particularly with reference to marriages! The system has been changing however. But in certain pockets, caste is given unnecessary importance even now.

Yes Louis, You are right in your evaluation of caste practice among Muslims in India. However, as you know it is no Islamic precept. It is a historical tragedy. As pointed out by a non-Muslim politician in the Parliament of India, when you (caste Hindus) did not allow them to your temples, they turned to mosques where there was no such restriction as spirituality is very much innate and requires its expression. Since, those who came to India were kings are belonged to the races of kings (note they had not come to spread Islam, only to establish or expand their empire) they considered superior to the newly convert. Therefore, as one Muslim pointed out "Yes, we are equal inside the Masjid, not so outside". But, still Islamic background has moderated this caste hierarchy to the extent that it is not base on the concept of purity and pollution rather on the place or class in the society. However, it does not belie the fact that several converted Muslims from lower strata of non-Muslims elevated to the extent of king-makers in Muslim India. Rajput Hindus being warriors or so-called martial race were always treated at par. However, in Muslim history of India there are reported several instances of marriages among ashraaf (high-caste) Muslims and ajlaaf (low-caste) Muslims. After independence and demolition of zamindari (landlords or feudal lords) system, so-called ajlaaf Muslims being from occupational castes ascended in the hierarchy of Muslim community as most of Muslims are self-employed and remaining land in their hands due to their lavish living style from days of zamindari and its division among offspring has reduced them the poor. Moreover, increasing education and awareness of their identity led them to know fundamentals of their faith and nowadays no eyebrow is riased if marriage takes between so-called ashraaf and ajlaaf Muslims. Another fact is Muslim are by now mostly concentrated in urban centers and anonymity of urban life has made it easier than previously.

Dear Gwen,

Your response is interesting and clear in you approach. However, use of terms like .'European Islam' or territorial boundaries do not fit in a Muslim's thinking. Sources of Islam are intact and secure as well as in the reach of any educated persons. Therefore, there is no question of Indian Islam', 'European Islam' or 'Saudi Arabian Islam' further Islam does not believed by territorial lines in which humanity is artificially divided by man. To a Muslim the world belong to God and all humans have right to go and live and enjoy its resources anywhere..Nationalism is a recent concept, earlier were simply civilisations even in your own terminology Islam in its approach is universal, there exists no territorial, language, religious, colour boundary or boundary or restriction of any sort. To call Islam European or Indian is as violation of Muslim sensitivities as to call Muslim as Mohammedans. Whatever, variations among Muslim practices within Islamic fundamentals or based on Scholars interpretations what Muslims are required to do in a given situation. A large number of Muslims adhere to a certain old schools of jurisprudence. But, it is not that Muslim scholars have stagnate in any jurisprudence not to be able to solve new problems arising out of cultural, social innovations and progress in the field of medical science and political changes.

Hi Firoz,

Your post is very enlightening; I am saddened to learn that terminology now ingrained in the academy -- namely, "European Islam" -- may be offensive to Muslims in that it implies refutation of a key concept of Islam, which is the unity of Muslims around the globe. Of course, I might have anticipated this terminology "would rub Muslims the wrong way" as I have often cited the following statement by an Imam in Sweden who was protesting "mosque membership" as a basis for collecting church dues from Muslims in Sweden:

"Membership fees are completely alien to the concept of Islam; one is not a member of a mosque. All Muslims are one large denomination expanding the globe. Sweden is already religiously diverse because there are many religions here. But the initiative to help in collection of church dues shows that it is the perspective of the Church of Sweden that guides the laws.". . . Hüseyin Ayata, IKUS (Islamic Culture Center in Sweden). This quote is from page 7 of my paper, "SORRY BUT IT'S THE LAW: The Westernization of Islam," which is available on RG.

Firoz, I fear it is too late to roll back usage of the "European Islam" terminology which I heard used for the first time in 2002 by noted French Sociologist Daniéle Hervieu-Legér who was giving a keynote address at the Nordic Conference on the Sociology of Religion which was held in Uppsala, Sweden, that year. (The other keynote address was given by American Sociologist of Religion Nancy Ammerman, now at Boston University, who spoke about the Volunteerism of the churches in Lower Manhattan (which includes China Town, City Hall and the federal and state courthouses as well as Manhattan's Financial Center) in the wake of the 9/11 destruction. Because of the rampant 9/11 hysteria that was still in the air in 2002, sociologists were scrambling for a "theoretical opening" that would become the critical eye of sociology in analyzing 9/11 and so everyone in the audience was all ears when "Hervieu-Legér of France" took the podium as the voice of experience with "European Islam".

Unfortunate, yes indeed; but it is what it is.

Gwen

"To call Islam European or Indian is as violation of Muslim sensitivities as to call Muslim as Mohammedans. Whatever, variations among Muslim practices within Islamic fundamentals or based on Scholars interpretations what Muslims are required to do in a given situation". Firoz

"Firoz, I fear it is too late to roll back usage of the "European Islam" terminology which I heard used for the first time in 2002 by noted French Sociologist Daniéle Hervieu-Legér who was giving a keynote address at the Nordic Conference on the Sociology of Religion which was held in Uppsala, Sweden, that year. , .Unfortunate, yes indeed; but it is what it is." Gwen

Seriously?

Anyhow, the idea that an 'idea' existing cannot be influenced to change may sound too dysfunctional in academic discourse. I am certain that the nature of academia is such that whenever an 'idea' crops up and is vocalised (like in the case of the FIRST MENTION of EUROPEAN ISLAM) by "noted French Sociologist Daniéle Hervieu-Legér" in 2002 , acceptance will eventually determine how it sits and germinates into the lingua franca (?) thus becoming part of the register in the relevant academic literature.

The fact that 'European Islam' cannot be rolled back is not because it really 'cannot be rolled back' but because it has earned a value within the relevant academic community as a commodity that can be dressed up for any number of audiences and it will be a soft sale. I regret to concur that this nomenclature for "the system of Islam" practiced in Europe may indeed never change BECAUSE the affected population ACTUALLY accept to be addressed as such no matter the amount of resistance Muslims from other parts of the world would put up. And that will appear to be the crux of the subject matter of this thread - should 'transplanted Islam change' within its 'new' (Europe and America) socio-cultural environment? It would. But how?

Unless and until Muslims in Europe and America begin to engage in relevant and significant academic work in sociological studies, getting their work also published and willingly engaging the academia on the presumptions (I know where this may lead since a presumption has to be rebutted) that there are 'shades of Islam' for different locations, Muslims are wont to go by whatever names the academia in America and Europe will call them. How soon have we forgotten the changes in Islamic (Muslim) names even of renowned philosophers? I tell you, very few graduate students will know that AVICENNA and AVERROES are the names of two Muslim Philosophers.

Dear Mohammed Firoz Khan, pardon the 'academics' and let sleeping dogs 'be' for no amount of pep talk will raise the issue to any appreciable level of discussion. Professor Gwen has a point and that is that it is too late to roll back usage of the "European Islam" terminology! Yes, it is because the literature CAN and DOES defend it!

But, then again, Bello could become the "Edward Said" of this millennium and write us an ORIENTALISM game-changer like Said did. How about it, Bello? Here are some incendiary words from Said to fire you up:

"So far as the United States seems to be concerned, it is only a slight overstatement to say that Muslims and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have, instead, is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world, presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression" ( Edward Said, 'The Nation' as quoted in Wikipedia).

Gwen

Oh yes! I wish I could. Then my discipline creates my own problem. I am a lawyer and would love to remain within my confines to the extent I may allow myself the little indulgences that may reflect on that discipline from other areas once in a while.

Yes, Edward Said has his points. And having read him some, I have also seen the response to his position including the fact that all aversion to the nature of media coverage of Islam that Said has observed within the Middle Eastern academy has been overwhelming. I do not want to join the fry, but thank you nonetheless.

I should say however that 'our' shortcoming is not in our ability to make a stand for the 'right' perception, but the fact that 'we' have to get out of our essentially 'home' domains to get access to the kind of forum that would listen to our views. Said had that opportunity. We would also, eventually.

In the meantime, I am comfortable engaging the views of people like Daniel Pipes, Raymond Ibrahim (both Middle Eastern professed academics) and the whole gamut of the projects they undertake 'challenging' Islamic (synonymously called Arab/Arabic) sensibilities including culture and traditions. Someday, the media would see Islam for what it is - not entirely an ARAB thing!

Ah, yes, thank you indeed. By the way, your reference above is NOT quintessential Said!

This one is:

“Every empire, however, tells itself and the world that it is unlike all other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate."

(Los Angeles Times, July 20, 2003)”

― Edward W. Said

Dear Everyone,

Following any particular religion is a very personal affair. I think, we need to have some sort of emotional control over ourselves while discussing this matter!

Of course, you are right, Hemanta. Nevertheless, Bello, let's see some non-adversarial but enlightening scholarship from you on whether one should passively accept labeling under The Other's nomenclature when this is being done solely for the purposes of carrying out The Other's agenda.

Gwen Che Guevara

Dear Gwen and Aminu,

First let me thank you to address me as Firoz as gives me a feel of closeness and belonging as in my family and my colleagues in the university and friends address me as such. Even my students address me as Firoz sir informally. Aminu, “The fact that 'European Islam' cannot be rolled back is not because it really 'cannot be rolled back' but because it has earned a value within the relevant academic community as a commodity that can be dressed up for any number of audiences and it will be a soft sale.” You are right, for its soft sale because it reminds Muslims there they belong to the Western civilisation and may gradually pave way for their complete assimilation in the Western culture where they will reduced to a cult of the West without knowing fundamentals of origin of their cult. However, it is hard to agree “The fact that 'European Islam' cannot be rolled back is not because it really 'cannot be rolled back' but because it has earned a value within the relevant academic community as a commodity that can be dressed up for any number of audiences and it will be a soft sale.”

“I regret to concur that this nomenclature for "the system of Islam" practiced in Europe may indeed never change BECAUSE the affected population ACTUALLY accept to be addressed as such...”

In fact, Muslims used to be referred as “Mohammedans” by orientalist from their own tradition of being of Christian (follower of Christ) denomination. But, pressures in Western colonies and from outside made them to correct it.

It is not that Muslims as citizens of a nation should not have a sense of belonging to it. But, belonging does not mean expression in adoption of majority’s culture or way of living. If Christians have the right to defend their culture and institutions Muslims why cannot preserve their way of life. Is it not considered to be democratic in the Western democracies? My perception of democratic rights is from my course in civics in High School (10th Standard) like this “one has right to go down the street with both hands stretched, but one’s right stops where my nose starts.” It was the lesson on democratic rights which my teacher tried to instil in my mind. If Muslims do something that compromises others rights, then certainly they need to mend their ways. But, to the best of my knowledge and belief there is nothing in Islamic way of life of that may harm others, rather Muslims consider Islam as “peace and security” for all creatures, humans, animals, plants and others.

Edward Said may have opportunity and a point but did it make a difference in a nation which spies on its allies, allies who belong to the same religious denomination and are hearth of American culture. Where do stand others? Especially Muslims who are different in several ways from them and may be considered a threat due to their sheer number and realised and potential natural resources in a few of their majority nation states.

"My perception of democratic rights is from my course in civics in High School (10th Standard) like this “one has right to go down the street with both hands stretched, but one’s right stops where my nose starts.”

Wow, during my 3 years at Harvard Law School, I never, ever heard such a perfect definition of the tort of "trespass." This one really works in individualistic societies such as ours where it is often difficult to grasp at what point pursuing one's own self-interest amounts to neglecting one's obligations to the collective. Visualizing the point as being the point where one's actions result in an intrusion upon the space of the collective (community) is very, very helpful.

I thank you, Firoz!

Gwen

Gwen,

We are all educated into a particular culture. All the word we use are cultural artefact. We think through/with our culture. Even the ideology of individualism is a cultural mental construct that those promulgating it are just enforcing another type of collective form of thinking. There is nothing individualistic about promulgating this type of collective ideology.

Firoz - I am not familiar with this interesting adage: “one has right to go down the street with both hands stretched, but one’s right stops where my nose starts.”

Westerners, having the adages "keep your nose clean" and "keep your nose out of my business" tend to interpret these from a transitive angle, meaning, do not involve yourself with troublesome endeavors nor interfere with the endeavors of others. While both originate in the issue of getting close enough to smell the matter, this literalist basis of interpretation is elided.

Honor-based cultures ate more apt to retain more of the original earthiness to their adages and proverbs, prompting me to offer my own interpretation. While I do not know what 'both hands stretched' means, I will try to offer a likely scenario, and what I would like, Firoz, if you don't mind, is to tell me if this interpretation makes sense to you, and if not, why not.

One may interrupt the conscious space of another with a legitimate function of, say, asking for alms; but absent such legitimate basis, to come upon another close enough for the nose to detect the matter suggests a shamelessness in that such heedless disregard of psychic space is likely to be taken as evidence of crudity or even, possibly, of unmanliness.

I thank you in advance, Firoz.

Oh dear me!

Just to clear the air from any possible misplaced impressions…(which I prefer to pretend do not exist)…

Here is a short lesson in the cultural components of the idiomatic content we all so much value while often failing to understand. I will use ‘airing/exposing/hanging one’s dirty laundry for all to see’. I stated above that the honor-based will often cling closer to the gritty, earthy, literalist rendering. The following examples suggest that this is indeed the case.

The following link shows that within a given culture (broadly, Anglo-English) there are honor-based and dignity-based interpretations of the same idiom. This writer compares the English with the American. I would leave it to the reader to determine which is the honor-based, but I don’t trust Bello to ‘get it’ so it’s the English one for the record, prior to the record.

http://yourgreatlife.typepad.com/your_great_life/2010/06/hanging-out-the-dirty-laundry.html

The next link is the source for the two excerpts below it. These are honor-based renderings for basing it on the core element of exposure of what should normally be kept private. Exposure and privacy are a very bad pair of bedmates. A sterile couple to be sure.

http://evilbot.com/uncategorized/what-does-it-mean-to-hang-out-your-dirty-laundry/comment-page-1/

Shinobu

March 5th, 2012 at 6:36 pm

I could be wrong, but I believe it means to tell your secrets. Like shouting out to the world and things like that

Mircat

March 5th, 2012 at 7:35 pm

To air your dirty laundry is how I’ve mostly heard the phrase used. It means letting other people know your or your families dirty secrets. Like Uncle Harry the embezzler who is serving time in prison. The family doesn’t talk about him but you have a couple drinks too many and spill the beans or air your dirty laundry for people to know about.

The next link goes to an article by an American journalist who never uses the idiom in her explanation yet takes the entirety of her message to exemplify the saying since she uses it as the title. Note that the subject matter involves communicating the truth of what is normally too uncomfortable to talk about openly even in safe company. Yet this truth will, as experience demonstrates, enable more communication, at first in protected circumstances, and ultimately in open public where it has often become a political issue.

http://voices.yahoo.com/hanging-out-dirty-laundry-10209913.html

What follows is a religiously inspired approach expressing what the idiom actually means to a dignity-based person. It offers a religious explanation for the general one I just used as a summary for the last link.

http://heathershomewardjourney.blogspot.com/2009/11/hanging-out-your-dirty-laundry.html

And for an excellent secular example, again with a perfect comprehension of the dignity-based impression, this one deals with a very sensitive topic, mental illness. I just wrote a 6,000 word essay making the same point as she is courageously making from her own personal experience. Again, as in all dignity-based examples of this idiom, the issue is truth-telling so that the truth becomes more available, for such is the truth that sets us free.

http://musingsoftheamusingmuse.com/2012/04/27/hanging-out-some-dirty-laundry/

Americans often find the first instance of this dignity-based expression in civics classes where it is taught in connection with the ability of a democratic moiety to hold itself accountable. Holding public hearings after evidence of corruption is both literally and figuratively the airing of ‘dirty laundry’. In actual reality it combines the best of honor-based and dignity-based ideals. The cult of honor, which rarefies, concentrates and puts to social benefit the best of some portion of the social mythology also knows that accountability is singularly important in maintaining the high level of trustworthiness that such professions of ideal require.

The dignity-based component recognizes that political accountability is the sine qua non to democracy, especially as compared with aristocracy. The dignity-based view elides the earthy element of airing dirty secrets and views it more in terms of the correct means to necessary and beneficial ends, the obvious one being to allow truth to ultimately prevail even though its first encroachments are seen as just that, impudent encroachments.

Insofar as mental health is concerned, I would also indicate that honor-based approaches do not approve any mention of the behaviors under that label as referenced to particular persons. In fact, to mention your own (mental health) problem to a friend is worse than what some call ‘sharing’. It is something that the honor-based would remark as follows: “talking mental illness to a respectable person is the equivalent of compelling them to see you directly with their nose.” Here, the Western approach (those elements that are dignity-based) are far ahead of the rest of the world. I will add that the same argument applies to religion. For most if the same reasons, by the way.

I 'get it'; or do I? English is for me a second language!

I get this though: That "One has the right to go down the street with both hands stretched, but one's right stops where my nose starts." Where does that place me?

My right stops (ends) where my act encroaches on someone else's right! However, my act could be beneficial to both of us - thus, I have not touched his or her nose! Could I have simply just bruised/brushed the nose! (giggle)

But seriously, I GOT it!

English could have been your fifth language and it would not, because could not, serve as an excuse. And I'll wager you are either incapable, or simply too cowardly, to acknowledge the reason why. That, you see, would require understanding something about scholarship. Because of the immature way in which you conduct yourself you have dug a hole for yourself that you wouldn't have, absent the rules and ethics of scholarship, dug in the first place, and now dug, cannot escape for failing to know how to apologize wither to scholarship or to those who you used for target practice.

Every moron understood the broad and 'safe' import of the adage regardless the correct in depth interpretation. All you do here is plead innocence because you are but a creepy adult acting like a child. The fact that you are capable of occasionally having something intelligent to say does not grant you the right to shoot off your innate inanities at will. I asked a serious question that you have yet to recognize as such. All you can do is take the fifth or just declare "not guilty". And that, after the proof is in...

And if your act be beneficial -- by that token you haven't touched noses as you put it? Clearly you have no earthly idea what you are talking about and equally that you absolutely either do not 'get it' or are pleading for mercy. And you can't even do that as a mature adult.

If you understood so well in the beginning, why vote down a serious question? Did you feel embarrassed? Did you seriously believe that reality is off limits in science? If do you are worse than a crass fool. For if that is the case you place yourself above everyone else here while demonstrating ignorance and disrespect for those who actually happen to know what the hell they are talking about.

And if you learned so well from subsequent events, why fail to vote up the answer that offered you the opportunity to set thing aright? Action, whether in commission or omission, Bello, even absent all the other evidence, denominate you as lacking intellectual credibility. That has little to do with IQ and everything to do with whether and to what extent you comprehend scholarship as above your culture, and above your religion when you are here on this site. That does not mean this site is BETTER than those matters, but that science has rules and it matters not your culture or religion whether you like them or not. When you are here you obey them. Period. This is not open to negotiation.

If any Muslim felt my question was raising the bar for comfort, there was always one simple and easy way to handle that without ruffling feathers and without being disagreeable to scientific discourse. I wonder if any of you folks actually understand what that might have been? Prior, that is to my telling you. (And where is Firoz). For the slowpokes: you openly and without cowardice or unmanly hiding simply say that it is not in your culture permissible for such thing to adorn any page of any book, scientific or no. That at least tells us that you have a care and consideration for truth, and are not ducking a reasonable question just to protect your preciously sensitive egos. It is NOT sufficient to assume that everyone knows that and has to step tippy toes to make idiots happy or keep them suitably comfortable and contained, like children who are to be seen, not heard. That isn't what honor is about, and it isn't what dignity is about.

And if someone wants to argue that point, go for it. But I warn you again. I happen to know what the hell I am talking about, and I have a pretty fair idea that I am one of very few here who can dare say that.

I am getting close enough to smell the matter and I need not, I am citizen of a proud nation and belong to a culture with different values. However, these are individuals of dignity-based societies who poke their noses into matters of their governments and others and hang out their dirty laundry. So far stretching both hands is concerned Aminu has got it correctly. So far hanging out one’s dirty laundry is concerned honour-based societies do not believe in diplomacy and have courage to call a spade a spade. If there is no legitimate basis, it is wise and required not to interrupt one’s conscious space. If yours is a sympathetic advice (caution) I do not give a damn to it. Otherwise, these are dignity-based societies which international fora asked the poor and developing countries to sell their products on a lower costs because labour is cheap there, but these societies having cheap capital and dear labour never gave capital on a smaller rate for their development, rather these societies have become bounded labour always serving debts.

It is general behaviour of dignity-based societies if they don't have true and straight forward answer when asked on the basis of their cherished values, they become subtle and attempt to deflect the argument in other directions.

"If there is no legitimate basis, it is wise and required not to interrupt one’s conscious space."

You know, Firoz, you could've just said that up front. Would have been the scholarly and polite thing to do as an answer to a perfectly reasonable and rational question. You also use "stretching both hands" in a slightly new context. I said up front these words have various meanings and I knew not which to select. Perhaps you now mean to suggest -- and saying so directly would, again, have been the scholarly and polite thing to do -- that putting both hands out is a kind of maximal intent to be respecting and/or accepting, almost as if to guarantee against the possibility of getting close enough for the noses to for the talking, as it were. But all told I will accept that you have effectively established my interpretation, if unwillingly and begrudgingly.

Let me go to the next point with this excerpt -

"However, these are individuals of dignity-based societies who poke their noses into matters of their governments and others and hang out their dirty laundry."

This is the honor-based objection to an approach to dirty laundry that true dignity-based people in fact do not entertain. Which was why I went to not inconsiderable effort to show that honor-based people within a nominally dignity-based society can make the same errors of interpretation you are doing here.

But as to the political implications of your remark, namely, that dignity-based countries have managed to insert themselves in derogatory and demeaning ways into other cultures, YOU ARE CORRECT! And guess what, Firoz? These capitalized words are precisely what dignity-based people mean when saying we air our dirty laundry. I am announcing the failures of American policies and attitudes that are specifically American dirty laundry that require to be aired if we Americans are ever to get our acts together.

They are also necessary to air so that you honor-based folk will understand that we are not your enemies, but rather it is the underbelly of our country that chooses to do wrong. We dignity-based sorts want only to do right by ourselves and by you. So if you really want me to join you in objecting to the dignity-based approach to idioms, you might just as well cut off your nose to spite your face. Your objection is thus unfounded, ungrounded and unfortunate. I hope you will consider the possibility of learning from an expert in matters of honor and dignity rather than taking every opportunity to be disturbingly plaintive. It gets annoying, frankly.

Next point:

"So far hanging out one’s dirty laundry is concerned honour-based societies do not believe in diplomacy and have courage to call a spade a spade." Well, Firoz, there is something of both good and bad here. It is not cut and dry as you presume. You may have heard something about the U.S government shutting down recently over the antics of Congress. That happened, Firoz, because an honor-based party within our government took your advice to the hilt. A lot of people suffered for nothing. Perhaps that makes you feel better. Well, that party happens to be the party that would like to shut you folks down. This is the party whose membership manifest prejudice toward your kind here. So, Firoz, in all your knowledge and wisdom, it appears you are lacking a few marbles somewhere. Maybe you could consider listening more than complaining, especially to experts of culture, which you evidently are not.

You have doubtless heard that democracies require the use of compromise. That happens to be correct, though it need not and should not deny core values their fair expression. And that is what lies behind the dignity-based airing of laundry, as well as of a scientific sit called RG as well as the very concept of the 'office'. The principle is this: where getting along or getting done what must be done is concerned, one must needs rise above party fervor and look to the good of the whole, and it will be in those terms, with that vision, and with that attitude, that compromise is discovered. And please don't be so brutally ignorant as to tell me that honor-based people have no such notions of their own. Ever haggled at a bazaar? Same principle, small scale. No one's core values are upset and a price is obtained through compromise. Duh. What on earth, Firoz, is so difficult about this that it cannot be applied broadly? I'll tell you what, Firoz. It's called taking yourself too seriously. That is what it's called. Get over it, Firoz, and pass that message along...

Penultimately -

"I am getting close enough to smell the matter and I need not, I am citizen of a proud nation and belong to a culture with different values." Again, there is something to admire and something to question here. There is pride, and then there is pride. Which is a way of saying that an appropriate amount of pride is just that, appropriate, but that more than what is appropriate is just that.

Don't be clinging to the excuse of different values with an expert on culture. That's not your best moment. The whole point of understanding the cultural roles of dignity and honor is to appreciate that in every society they commingle, if in somewhat different ways. The very fact that they do should suggest that we can use these ideas to better understand one another. That, at least is what I use them for, and I happen to be the guy who developed the vast majority of existing theoretical work on these concepts - not the concepts as persons take them from the heart, for that is everywhere and always. No, what I do is demonstrate how specific meanings of these words are able to explain and predict very many facets in and between cultures. Absent that knowledge I could hardly have pretended to offer honor-based and dignity-based versions of the self-same idioms.

And finally, Firoz, I do want to compliment you on something, You have used the words honor and dignity pretty much in the correct ways, and you appear intrigued by their applicability. Here is your opportunity to profit from this excellent attribute. You have here the horse's mouth on the dignity-honor binary. You might consider offering a tiny tad of respect, and you also might consider taking the opportunity to expand your mind and learn more about these ideas. For these are the ideas that allow people to get along; they are not the ideas that divide people. As a philosopher I would never promote my work for any other than good work in the world.

Hello All,

Before Hemanta comes in and tells everyone to “Chill”, I would like to get reactions to a quote from Steven Caton’s “Lawrence of Arabia: a film’s anthropology” (Univ. of CA Press, 1999). I think the quoted language supports my suspicion that the honor/dignity based societies dialectic that is occurring in the Academy is neither probative nor enlightening, rather it is merely provocative. If this is true, this would make me very happy because I keep muddling the distinction between the two societal categories. And, I have become even more confused because of Charles connecting the word “honor” (as I -- a layperson rather than an intellectual -- understand that word) with the Republican Party.

“Homi Bhaba says of Said’s orientalist critique, for example, that ‘where the originality of this pioneering theory loses its inventiveness, and for me its usefulness, is with Said’s reluctance to engage with alterity and ambivalence in the articulation of orientalist discourse.’ Bhaba illustrates his criticism with an examination of the stereotype, asserting that the stereotype, far from offering a secure point of identification for the colonizer, as Said would have it, is in fact ‘a complex, ambivalent, contradictory mode of representation, as anxious as it is assertive.’ The ambivalence that the stereotype provokes in the colonizer consequently subverts the binariness of the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ distinction; that is, the ‘them’ begins to look more and more like the ‘us’ in colonial representation” (p. 9).

Thanks,

Gwen

P.S. Bello, is this why you rejected my suggestion that you take up the sword for Said or is the reason just that you are lazy?

Said ultimately took himself too seriously. He took a collection of conceptions and tried to turn the whole into socio-political theory. He was neither trained or capable to go there and for that reason his thesis was seriously damaged goods from the moment it came out. I couldn't read it all so put it by, same thing Jefferson did with Plato's Republic. On the other hand, Said's work Palestine was very well done. He had definite objectives and an abundance of empirical research to work from. I regularly quote what he excerpted of Herzog.

One of the problems when academe deigns to believe themselves the gods of intellect and to devolve into a cult of dignity that neglects outsiders is that people who actually do the good work and carry the burden are never heard from. Further, existing journal work is effectively unavailable. In fact, the last mainstream academic who I was aware of working specifically on the honor-dignity binary was Orit Kamir. Haven't seen anything from her since, and she only covered the easy superficial stuff and even there got things awry, as in considering Rome to be the epitome of bad honor-based cultures. In fact, they were the first large-scale dignity-based entity.

The first major attempt in philosophy to achieve something with binaries was Nietzsche's Appolinian-Dionysian material, which he flubbed so completely that he publicly apologized in the second edition of the work (Birth of Tragedy).

Thus the only way one will get a decent overview is listening to snippets or to my paper on Belief-Reliance Systems, which covers the honor-dignity binary from the underlying jural concepts. The chief phenomenological trait of the honor-baased (to dignitarians) is taking their ideas and themselves too seriously. It is almost, not quite universal, in the honor-based world and its subcategories. This is the easiest way to see the honor-based aspect of a healthy chunk of Republicans. As a generality, the rural, the religious and the working classes tend toward the honor-based. It is VERY reliable on the whole. Prior to that Party taking up the 'religious right' we had comparatively little trouble with the 'take too seriously' issues. The laboring poor voted rights and work benefits until the Republicans sold them on 'family values' which spoke far more directly to the cultural background that even rights and the workplace could not easily compete with.

Honor characterized by earned worth (not inherent worth), trust (rather than faith) and respect (v. acceptance). They also tend more towards realism v. idealism. These are first tier. In the second tier we get the shame-guilt dyad, the individualist-collectivist, and in this and the third tier are Hofstede's other dimensions.

Honor-based diehards will turn anything to their advantage, including the very terminology of the honor-dignity binary. It would be naive to expect anything other than that. When every other conversation turns to plaintiveness, when every third conversation results in demands for respect of religion and/or culture, you are dealing with folks who are here to expound, not learn. Not to expect that is, again, to be naive. My experience in personally dealing with honor-based folk has turned out to be exceptionally successful. (Some of my experience is online, e.g. San Francisco Sentinel, What's in a Word?) Here, on RG, where anonymity in part enables one to say what peers will approve and avoid what brings q question of complete devotion to this or that, does not conduce to an open discourse.

This is where a strong talk and a showdown mentality are required. In demand environments nicey nicey gets you taken advantage of, though it is of course far more pleasant. I tend to think that a discourse of science is pleasant when dealing with truth and reality according to basic rules. It becomes pretty clear pretty fast when a given person is here for that reason or rather another.

It is clear that I have not made a lot of friends. What I have also done is to scare a lot of people into realizing they are so bright and capable in these topics as they thought. Which is, after all, the point. The point is to get the discourse into the realm of decency and ideals and objectives. The point is to remind people to second guess themselves before springing into diatribes. The point is to get them to respect the rules as being deserving of their respect, and that these have zippo and zero to do with how great this or that culture is or how great this or that religion is. Huntington did not write what he did because he was a grand fool. The folks here, too many of them, are the grand fools. Huntington's book is very embarrassing for a lot of folks to seriously read, because it is seriously true, and that hurts those who takes themselves too seriously. But then, that was his point. Duh. Don't talk about him, READ HIM.

A final note on the honor-dignity binary. Most have a hard time dealing with something so simple that gets complicated so fast. That is to an extent understandable. I can deal with a fair amount of that skepticism. But comparing what I do to what academics are doing is something of a joke. The entire system I work with is predicated on metaphysical principles equally with sociological and anthropological. Problem: that only makes a defense more and more difficult because more complicated.

E. R. Dodds devoted two chapters in his classic 'Greeks and the Irrational' to the shame-guilt dimension because it so highlighted the cultural elements he was dealing with. And yet that dimension is actually not even a first tier dyad but is second tier. When you show people their defects they object. Gee whiz, shock. But when you do it by demonstrating integrity and honesty, and of your own defects, things will, over time change. And that is the point. A solid backbone and solid ideas work.

Nicey nicey without backbone does not go very far. That is critical in dealing with the honor-based. Even Ronald Reagan had that much figured out. When Sharon tread about Temple Mount very few people went immediately to the internet to announce the Second Intifada. I was one of those few. As I have said. I just happen to know what the hell I am talking about. Don't criticize until you have something to criticize. Ask and learn, I won't bite. But please, do not compare what I do with what the academics do. Not profitable.

Thanks, Charles. A lot of what you said in this last post seems to me to be relevant to an open question I have on RG that has gotten too few responses to broaden my knowledge of the subject (although I have made a date with an economist who is knowledgeable and should get some help before I finish writing the Neo-liberalism paper that motivated the question). Here is the question posed: "Is 'Neoliberalism' just a euphemism for right-wing conservatism?".

So, Charles, when you have a moment, please go to that question and see what you can do with it, keeping in mind that my problem is separating the political definition of "neoliberalism" from the economic definition of neoliberalism (hopefully, that is possible or the thesis of my paper will not work). The time pressure is not great as I am not presenting the paper until July 2014 at a conference in Japan.

Thanks in advance,

Gwen

Will do. (and in advance, you're welcome). Still waiting for my article to be accepted. Never ever took this long before. Good grief...

Dear Gwen,

"When every other conversation turns to plaintiveness, when every third conversation results in demands for respect of religion and/or culture, you are dealing with folks who are here to expound, not learn." C.S. Herrman.

I could be lazy, yes. But think I am not. I am comfortable learning from C.S, Herrman. I do not have the same approach to academic engagement (scholarship?). And I must chill! I am still fond of my idioms without thinking I must second-guise myself. Thank you.

But without cheating myself of the benefit here, I do promise to remain the student that I am for I am sure that is what administrators of RG would want. I do not have a loud trumpet!

Bello

And that is plenty good enough for me, Bello. Carry on.

@Dear Friend Charles,

If you have chilled after eating your foot, I have something more for your scholarly musings. We have a saying, “zabardast mare aur rone bhi na de” (the bully thrashes and does not let cry}. It is what the West is doing out of a profound arrogance and a sense of material superiority. All types of atrocities, intrusions, offending others’ sensitivities and prototyping others is your business in all sphere of life as though others do not understand the design. Go and eat your foot again.

I am a little curious, Firoz, how I can agree with you than the West, and particularly the U.S., has acted arrogantly (which is, btw, the worst pejorative generally speaking in the honor-based vocabulary), and yet still suffer your insults. I must be a pretty laid back fella, all things considered.

It never seems to dawn on folks like you that many of your criticisms are better thrown back upon yourself. It is just another trademark of folks who take themselves too seriously. They get into the bald-faced lie business and more, just like the adorable Republicans I love to chide. So while you are throwing out your 'bully thrashes' bit, consider how you look to someone who is genuinely trying to become your friend, to win your trust and respect. You come across just like that bully, because, for starters, you use this site as your "bully pulpit". But oh, lordy, I really don't want to get on a roll, it would be too much fun at your expense. So I will stop right here. And end this I will with another idiom. When you point a finger, Firoz, in challenge, recall how many other fingers on the same hand are pointing straight back at yourself.

And if I do occasionally take up ungulostomatosis, it isn't because my data or facts were off, but that I misjudged the ability of another to handle truth.

Dear Gwen,

"But without cheating myself of the benefit here, I do promise to remain the student that I am for I am sure that is what administrators of RG would want. I do not have a loud trumpet!" Bello

Forgive me; good for you too?

I recall a point in this thread that you mentioned the 'incorporation' required of groups including masjids (mosques) and that this may be a change that may have consequences on the 'type' of Islam practised in the U.S. If so, it is probably worth noting that while Muslims do not indeed belong to Mosques (Masjids) with the consequence of registered membership, this will not constitute a change per se.

It would seem because of the 'ordered' nature of the American society (remember no state religion) and the expectation of keeping everyone under watch (the big brother watching you), asking religious groups to be registered is not an issue. I reason for instance that all buildings must go through several institutional checks to pass and get permission for construction and since masjids are buildings within the community, they will have to abide by the same rule governing environmental planning and safety standards. However, if the requirement for registration (incorporation) includes presentation of a list of MASJID MEMBERS, this will indeed constitute a drastic departure from the traditional muslim understanding of universal brotherhood and belonging to single UMMA regardless of the geographical location.

Yes, one believes 'transplanted Islam' will change according to the circumstances it finds itself. And there are doctrinal safeguards to ensure that any change does not remove one from the fold of Islam.

It may be interesting to advance, by way of examples, the expected 'changes' that you envisage may occur within the U.S socio-cultural environment that has warranted this question. There then may arise a reason to agree or disagree with Edward Said or any other middle eastern scholar.

By the way, have you heard of Irshad Manji (Moral Courage)?

Bello

Bello,

Thank you so much for this insightful post -- extremely helpful.

No, I have not heard of Irshad Manji and I hope that this is not Arabic for "moral courage" because I studied Arabic for two years as an undergraduate (at the University of Southern California) and got so good at it that I actually read Gamal Abdel Nasser's PHILOSOPHY OF THE REVOLUTION in Arabic without difficulty. Moreover, I earned "A" grades for all 4 semesters of the two years that I studied Arabic so it would be just too humiliating for you to tell me today that "Irshad Manji" is Arabic for Moral Courage. Is it, hopefully, the name of the author of a book called "Moral Courage"? If "Irshad Manji" is actually Arabic, please write it out in Arabic letters (access the font on your computer) and e-mail it to me ([email protected]) so I can see if I can read it.

Boy, do I hope it is the author's name; it is awful to get so old that you have forgotten everything that you used to know :>)

Gwen

Hi Bello,

I Googled “Irshad Manji” and to my relief found out that at least it is an author’s name and not further evidence of how much Arabic I have forgotten.

Wow, does she have a lot of lightening rod opinions (so much so that she said her home windows are all bullet proof, but this could be because she lives in the U.S. and we are all armed or have the right to be armed under the Fourth Amendment).

Bello she agrees with you that strict separation of church and state are not necessary – a rather novel view for a progressive Muslim such as herself (yes, that is right, Bello; I do not view you as a progressive Muslim). Manji believes that the Koran should be translated into languages other than Arabic, pointing out that only 13% of Muslims speak Arabic. She may have become less of a firebrand since recording the video I watched, which is 9 years old. However during this 27-minute video, she describes a type of Arab imperialism in the Muslim world – the same type of cultural chauvinism that I have been writing about in terms of the coerced isomorphism of immigrant religions. The YouTube video that I watched is an interview by Allan Gregg that took place in 2004 in connection with the release of her book, THE TROUBLE WITH ISLAM, and can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmMsMMX64pU.

Despite her being more progressive than I give you credit for being, I do understand your interest in her work, Bello. I am sure it is due to her profound belief that any needed liberalization of Islam will come from forces that are endemic to Islam – not from external pressures. In Manji’s own words: “There is nothing wrong with Islam that cannot be corrected with what has historically been right with Islam.”

Thanks from introducing me to her work.

Gwen

Dear Gwen,

I do think a nation state where people are overstaying is within its rights ask them to go and make its immigration policy as it wants. But, a state cannot throw out its naturalised citizens. In the West especially in the US all policies or based on pragmatism (since 1870) including use and throw,if you understand it. Pragmatism, even in the form of legislative measures, is no solution. Pr-requisite of shim among communities is understanding which can be achieved as you put it sometime earlier through dialogues. To me dialogue does not mean to ask a community to become seamless part of the other community loosing its identity in any sense. Nor, it means trade off. It simply means understanding. I have firm faith that a human group cannot be permanently apathetic to others. There are always sane voices and right meaning persons in every human community around the world, everybody is not shotty. People want to leave with peace and love. But, it requires understanding, respect to others' way of life and not doubting as well as to make place for others. It is only permanent solution. For, example it is not uncommon in offices and other places of work in India to see a Hindu colleague remind a Muslim one that it is time of your prayer go I look after your work till you return, or a Muslim colleague to offer (on his off day) to work in the place of a Hindu colleague when he has o be present for religious residuals at home or in temple, while Islam (read an intolerant religion) and Hinduism (read a tolerant religion as all are convinced in the West) are diametrically opposite each other. Then why such a respectful behaviour towards each other? It is simply out of understanding without trade offs of identities. Communities in plural societies should understand this point as soon as possible not only for the good of their national society but also for peace and prosperity in the plural world as a whole.

Hello Gwen,

"By the way, have you heard of Irshad Manji (Moral Courage)?" Bello

Thank God for Google. Yes I hoped you would do just that - google 'Irshad Manji'. Now I should be off the hook, right?

I am not a progressive muslim - if progress means being more westernised than anything else. Yes, I am not progressive! But what would I be then believing that the world today is not the same as it was one thousand four hundred and thirty-four years ago? What would I be if I accept that certain 'innovations' in Islam are necessary to live within the religiously plural society we have reached today - including such religions as ? that I am 'forced' to keep mute about on this site? What I'm I then if I concede, with Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im (heard of him? Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law, Emory Law), that Islamic Reformation is possible?

I do not have to be progressive to believe some in sociology. And also I do not need to be progressive to know sociology of religion has reached a peak in the United States of America, not because it has to, or wanted to, but because it MUST since that is the only way that the area can be a specialisation especially since 9/11. Are we on the same page?

You said of me/Manji:

"Despite her being more progressive than I give you credit for being, I do understand your interest in her work, Bello. I am sure it is due to her profound belief that any needed liberalization of Islam will come from forces that are endemic to Islam – not from external pressures."

Do you believe her? Please log onto her Moral Courage site and connect with her. Maybe you may give me some credit (even if I have been written off by some on RG).

Best wishes!

Bello.

Hello All,

This is what is so great about RG bringing scholars together. I could research and read, research some more and follow up with more reading, attend seminars and conferences ad infinitum, Google myself crazy, and yet not pick up the gems of knowledge that I need to achieve my goal of contributing well-balanced scholarship in my chosen field (the Sociology of Culture/Religion). However, during any given week on RG, I am exposed to a multiplicity of well-thought out stakes in the ongoing debate about the implied -- although unstated and perhaps non-deliberative -- commitments one makes when relocating to foreign shores. We American sociologists attempt to distinguish our positions on the subject matter by peppering our papers with terminology such as "melting pot" assimilation or "selective assimilation"; immigrant "integration" or "incorporation" (viewed from the standpoint of the host state); Transnationalism (a liminal state descriptive of most immigrants from India and "economic immigrants" from Mexico); or "coerced isomorphism" (Gwen's personal favorite).

Nonetheless, terminology falls short of capturing the essence of the debate so beautifully as has been done by Firoz and Bello in the posts directly preceding this one.

Gentlemen, I thank you!

Gwen

Bello,

Your denial of being "not a progressive Muslim" reminds me several things. Not in a too far future "progressive" was a dreaded word and those who described themselves as being progressive suffered a lot at several level even they found hard to make a livelihood. They were considered or still considered a threat to establishment. By the way, i had progressive worldview in my youth. Muslims are expected to be progressive in the West as context of meaning is different. Progressive Muslim is a person who is developing gradually or in stages (proceeding step by step) in western ways. Earlier use of progressive refers to persons who have leftist outlook. Notwithstanding all this, the fact is that the word progressive is an adjective of progress that in economic sense means quantitative increment as opposed to development that means qualitative change for better in life conditions making life more liveable and enjoyable. Though progress in sociology is an elusive term, but it may be understood by contrasting it from stagnant society. A society is one in which social institutions are intact and is closed to “modern” innovations of social and cultural origin.

The essence of the Western idea of progress can be simply stated: mankind has advanced in the past, is now advancing, and may be expected to continue advancing in the future. It is another matter that scholars and philosophers like Karl Popper, Kirkpatrick Sale, Montague David Eder, P. A. Sorokin, Georg G. Iggers may have to say something different from this popular Western concept of social progress.

But what does "advance" mean and what is direction of advancement? Here matters necessarily become more complex. The common place answer to both the questions modernisation that essentially means refers imitation of Western institutions and behavioural pattern. Is every institution, tradition, behaviour in stagnant societies is worthless or conversely all every institution, tradition, behaviour is modern may be implanted in these societies without harming their cohesion. Here are two questions. What the so-called backward/stagnant societies should expect from the West to progress and what the term “modern” implies as put by one of my students. My answer to the first is the backward/stagnant societies, if not aid should expect soft loan, with no conditions or plan how to progress. They should develop their own ideas/concepts and mechanism of progress whereby progress is defined as an onward march to create condition where people may advance spiritually, physically or materially. To the second, my answer was again it refers to the present state of progress achieved by the West. However, historically speaking, if one asks me to choose a modern trait between nakedness or scantily dressed conditioned and decently dressed condition, I shall certainly choose the latter because whether one believes in creationism or evolution, the first condition of living we have left in jungles, and from counted centuries we have learnt to dress ourselves to cover our body from elements of weather and climate and to save them dirt and dust, insects and to look beautiful and handsome as such latter way is modern in terms of human history. No pun is indented, no aspersions are cast. Ideas of progress may vary from person to person.

Hi Firoz,

Thank you for your extensive commentary on "progress" or "Modernity" as defined by Enlightenment intellectuals. I use this opportunity and your comments to point out that the blame lies with the Europeans -- not with Americans. Ahhh, so sweet, for once we well-intentioned Americans are innocent of chauvinistic intent; for It was long, long after the Enlightenment that we started our project of "making the world safe for Democracy"! Firoz, I refer you to my Dissertation on RG ("LEGISLATIVE TERRORISM: A Primer for the Non-Islamic State...") for the wise words of Talal Asad supporting my take on who is at fault for seeing progress through the eyes of the West; namely, Europeans (Comte, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber) preoccupied with founding the "science" of Sociology:

"The European enlightenment constitutes the historical site from which

Westerners typically approach non-Western traditions. That approach has

tended to evaluate and measure traditions according to their distance from enlightenment and liberal models. Thus, Islamic states are typically regarded as absolutist, and the practice of public criticism is seen as alien to them" (Asad quoted at page 71 of my Dissertation, "PART I. A Dubious Legacy: Xenophobic Social Theory").

I repeat, Europeans -- not Americans -- are at fault! Remember, Americans on the whole do not define Modernity as "less religion" -- our public and overt displays of secularized Christianity in the public square are legendary. Indeed, our well-ingrained "Civil Religion" has earned us the right to speak of "American Exceptionalism" when one theorizes about the "secularization of society".

Firoz, to be fair, I must quote from a Swedish sociologist (one of my mentors) whose comments sort of take the wind out of my sails in that they make irrelevant my Tripartite Theoretical Model (TTM):

"Neither the demystification of societal institutions nor structural differentiation necessarily results in a diminution of religious influence in a society or in its people. Indeed, one ought to question whether the demystification of institutions or structural differentiation has anything at all to do with the influence of religion, either in society or in the individual conscience. In other words, why not discontinue thinking of religion in connection with laws and legislation? Indeed, it is quite conceivable that humans retain religious faith and keep religious meaning in their lives so long as all societal institutions are considered God-given and so long as all religious institutions fulfill important societal functions without regard for their religious character" (Gustafsson, 2000, "Tro, samfund och samhälle: Sociologiska perspektiv"; my translation from Swedish, cited at p. 51 of my Dissertation).

Can you believe it, "discontinue thinking of religion in connection with laws and legislation"? If I did that, what would I do with the rest of my life?

Gwen

Re: "They should develop their own ideas/concepts and mechanism of progress whereby progress is defined as an onward march to create condition where people may advance spiritually, physically or materially" (Firoz).

Firoz, it occurred to me that this observation also deserves a response. So, I continue.

You are not alone in questioning GNP as the sole measurement of a nation's success in relation to human development. Indeed, there is a growing consensus that a nation’s rating on the Human Development Index (HDI) is perhaps more reflective of “important” progress in terms of an improved quality of life for its people. HDI combines indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index. It is now possible to access Human Development Reports online:

“CONCEPT AND MEASUREMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

“The Human Development Report (HDR) was first launched in 1990 with the single goal of putting people back at the center of the development process in terms of economic debate, policy and advocacy. The goal was both massive and simple, with far-ranging implications — going beyond income to assess the level of people’s long-term well-being. Bringing about development of the people, by the people, and for the people, and emphasizing that the goals of development are choices and freedoms.

“The Report addresses, as its main issue, the question of how economic growth translates - or fails to translate - into human development. The focus is on people and on how development enlarges their choices. The Report discusses the meaning and measurement of human development, proposing a new composite index. But its overall orientation is practical and pragmatic” < http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1990/>.

Gwen

Well, Gwen, as matters turned out I really couldn't apply too much H-D-theory to your neo-this-and-that query. I was quite taken aback, however, by the crudity of prior responses, which do admit to H-D theory, because the professions are first and foremost offices, and offices are first and foremost 'cults of honor'. Their origin is reification of the best of some split off portion of mythos for a society, followed by elaboration of means and ends that require the highest practicable performance levels and the ethics to ensure them. Ergo I get upset when professionals act like they had forgotten the fundamentals in their quest to be academic of the year by finding some nonsense to add to and detract from an otherwise perfectly sound construct (of course this is hyperbole and of course the top tier of academics are way above that; but the dross is what sticks out and too much of that in turn gets thrown the direction of RG). The present question, as it has now evolved, does offer a good bit more for H-D theory to explicate.

"The European enlightenment constitutes the historical site from which

Westerners typically approach non-Western traditions." So far so good, but the larger point is this: Why is this statement correct in the first place? It is true for the reasons that the Enlightenment folks were by and large reflecting high principles and ideals that Americans and most Westerners like to believe they can identify with. Of course, identifying need not imply doing so intelligently.

"That approach has tended to evaluate and measure traditions according to their distance from enlightenment and liberal models. Thus, Islamic states are typically regarded as absolutist, and the practice of public criticism is seen as alien to them."

A little history/sociology lesson from a master of the trade, J.P.V.D. Balsdon (Rome: the story of an empire. 162):

"Romans complaisantly judged all other peoples by a single standard, their own exalted opinion of themselves, and, judged by this standard, all other peoples fell short. [Here's the juicy part] Africans were over-sexed, Egyptians tiresomely litigious, Syrians rogues. Greeks and Asiatics were effete."

And, drum roll, the point? This was 1500 years before the bad boy Enlightenment. Just exactly what is the point in criticizing a movement for what is ingrained in many persons and cultures and empires? Stupidity, that's what. More academics forgetting the fundamentals in order to strut something or another. Movements do not cause problems, people do. Words do not cause problems, people do (by and large).

Ronald Reagan once compared America to Rome in a radio address. Oh, my, if only he knew how correct he was! The cardinal reason we and the other Western countries are nominally dignity-based is owing to the genius of the Enlightenment philosophes. The reason that we share many of Rome's negative characteristics is not because of dignity-based ideals but because people are what they are. Duh. Where in advanced education do wannabe scholars lose track of the fundamentals??? One of the godzillion reasons for H-D theory is to get back to these fundamentals.

An overview: There are honor-based and dignity-based types, and there are subdivisions in each. There are also two independent but related categories, the cult of honor and the cult of dignity. We have met the former, and shall now meet the latter. We and Rome are both nominally dignity-based, as said. What exactly does that mean? It means that the two major sociological structures best and most widely representing the mythos and elan of a people are its law and its religion, in particular their respective values as derived from the mythos (failing to go to the myth for the ultimate concepts is what plagued the shame-guilt system).

"A nation of laws, not of men." What the hell do you think that means??? Due process: What the hell do you think that means??? And on and on and on. And I DO NOT want to hear another person degrade the H-B theory until they can demonstrate that they have a thinking brain. Until that time, I am calling the shots here.

As for religion: What in the hell does it mean for each person to be worthy of God's grace??? If you need to connect yourself to an electrical outlet to jog the process, just be careful, I'd hate to lose a friend. And if Christianity means anything, what does that imply for dignity? Again, I DO NOT want to hear any more idiotic notions as to what is what in an area in which people are so abysmally ignorant.

The cult of dignity arises when dignity-based values are usurped by arrogance, greed and self-absorption. Some call it the sin of pride, which is certainly a pretty fair assessment. Ib the cult of dignity my dignity is better than your dignity. This cult, because a product of human nature, can affix to either the honor-based or dignity-based system. Euripides spilled the ink of forty-some plays to elaborate on the aristocratic cult of honor that devolved into a cult of dignity.

The Romans were nominally dignity-based because stressing individual dignity. And despite the power of the state, this dignity was wrapped up in service through stewardship, so that in serving the state the latter had ground for preserving the interests of those serving, which was in their case a pre-existing aristocracy, which was ultimately their doing-in, as it may well be for America if we aren't a good bit more watchful.

The Roman legal and religious system also stressed autonomy (though in China the same did not result in a dignity-based formulation, but that is another story, and a very interesting one at that). In law, Rome exhibited essentially all of the concepts we today see as showing the greatness of our own system, from juries to precedent, from laws respecting individuals to international laws respecting other cultures. And of course the caveat that is always requisite: Just because a mythic derivation exists on the books hardly means that drunken human beings will shine as brightly. For obviously they do not.

H-D theory helps to discriminate between conventions and behavior, between ideals and reality. That is a badly needed intellectual capacity these days. It helps us to get to the root of human actions and of institutional origins. It helps to frame arguments in any discipline requiring the interaction of people and their institutions.

We are at a point today where nominally dignity-based cultures operate more from the cult of dignity than from the actual value structure they so desire to identify with. It would pay us to learn the best of the honor-based cultures, because at their best they have a LOT -- let's repeat that: A LOT to teach us. By the same token, the hard core loud honor-based folks who use their religion to sell outmoded cultural constructs that do little but cause world-wide consternation would do well to learn the best of the dignity-based formulation, many of which can be advocated without the slightest little problem for their religion. For again: religions aren't the problem, people are.

Christianity gave the world shivers throughout the Medieval period. We grew out of that at length, and others today are in a modern equivalent of Medieval stupidity, and they, too, must learn to come to terms. These are basic. They are not negotiable. And only the H-D theory puts all of it together to as to have the package make sense as such, as also with regard to its constituencies.

"Indeed, one ought to question whether the demystification of institutions or structural differentiation has anything at all to do with the influence of religion, either in society or in the individual conscience. In other words, why not discontinue thinking of religion in connection with laws and legislation?" To the extent that structure of institutional existentialism has a great deal to do with norms and practices in religions, the first part of this excerpt leaves me wondering at the true intent. To discontinue thinking of religion in terms of laws and legislation presupposes something that evolves. It is a process, it is the process, in particular, of raising up and out from the cult of dignity and into a full appreciation of dignity-based values. At that point we can stop worrying that religious morons will try to legislate their insipidity upon everybody else. Until that time comes, we have laws to protect all of us, not just the squeaky axles.

"Indeed, it is quite conceivable that humans retain religious faith and keep religious meaning in their lives so long as all societal institutions are considered God-given and so long as all religious institutions fulfill important societal functions without regard for their religious character." God-given institutions have nothing to do with the point he thinks he wants to make. Religion can and does do quite nicely without the god-given stuff. It is an appurtenance that serves aesthetic and other roles that need not dictate core values or principle in a religion. How many American average Christians really believe that their churches are heaven sent? Please.

H-D theory keeps us real, focused, and intellectually active. It is the best thing going, an easy thing to say, since there is no alternative. What is the erstwhile existent doctrine that does the work of this theory? Nothing, that's what. The reason why Hofstede's approach is stillborn for use in cultural theory is because it lacks what is at the core of the H-D- system, without which explications and predictive value are well-nigh impossible. In short, it lacks a systemic integrated and consistent structure that accounts for empirical facts.

And please, enough of this idiocy that the Enlightenment is to blame for this and that. If anything we need to redintegrate the postulates of that grand experiment.

Firoz & Gwen,

Can I still claim relevancy here? (Just got me a shield . . .) Per chance, another view of the concept of development, regardless of the HDI may suffice. And I make bold to draw your attention to Johan Galtung!

This is your student.

Bello

Dear Firoz,

I am really not "not a progressive" for I am - in my own way. Yes, your analysis fits squarely my appreciation of the sense in which the concept is used here - thank you. What 'non-religious' people may want us to do is 'refuse' to say we have religion, but we do. And what does that mean? It means we can define ourselves even if that means 'taking ourselves too seriously'.

Bello

"What 'non-religious' people may want us to do is 'refuse' to say we have religion, but we do. And what does that mean? It means we can define ourselves even if that means 'taking ourselves too seriously'."

I hope you don't think that anyone here RG is suggesting that you not have, or should not have, religion. And 'defining' yourselves is NOT supposed to imply that you can be morons about your religion or your culture. That's like saying that as a mentally ill person I can dismiss effective medications the moment someone asks me to be responsible, so I can stick my finger in their eyes and say 'well, I don't need meds, so think I'll go out and kill a few dozen folks. No, I have responsibilities to society and so does every religionist.

There is an inherent code of responsibility in every religion, like it or not. So get over this puerile notion that you can stick your finger in anyone's eyes just because you think you are so special. You aren't. The Jewish thought they were something real special too, and your language is more than a little reminiscent of those values that got them into serious problems (that have since lessened because the attitudes have markedly improved except for the Orthodox).

'. . .and your language is more than a little reminiscent of those values that got them into serious problems . . .': I am learning (great!)

Bello,

Do you mean this Galtung:

"On August 8, 2012, the World Peace Academy in Basel, Switzerland announced it was suspending Galtung from its organization, citing what it posited were his 'reckless and offensive statements to questions that are specifically sensitive for Jews'" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Galtung)??????

If this is your man, please give me the exact titles of work by him that you deem germane to a discussion of the HDI, especially since you apparently think of Galtung as a preferable "voice of reason" to the authors/sociologists/philosophers/social theorists mentioned by me and Charles.

Thanks,

Gwen

I did not say 'preferable' voice, but 'another view' of the concept of development. So, maybe just this: "A Structural Theory of Imperialism" Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 8, No.2 (1971), 81-117.

You go, Gwen :)

Todays' Google toggle, cease violence against women: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/end-violence-against-women

Here is one aspect of many religions that needs to be modified. Unless religion evolves as we humans did we will essentially be forcibly transported back to the "dark ages" and religion will become totally irrelevant. If Genesis is the only limited improbable theory of creation, then it will lead to the demise of religion. If religion somehow is used to answer questions of science (rationalization of the "seen") rather than faith (belief in the "unseen"), then the motives of the religion would be clear. Political dominance! Religion is between the individual and "the creator". It is not a collaborative communal event. The communal aspect is for those with weak faith that need the "pacifier" of knowing that "they are not alone". Historically, the ability of religion to create harmony in society is dubious. All catastrophes due to wars and human disharmony could be either directly or indirectly tied in to religion one way or the other. (WW-II, India, Israel, Pakistan, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sudan, Palestine, Bosnia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Serbia etc... etc... etc...)

Irrespective of whether it is "transplanted Islam, whether coerced or not" or "transplanted Catholicism, whether coerced or not" (South America -conquistadors), the US as other true democracies is "secular". Secular meaning bereft of the influence of religion in our politics. Our founding fathers headed in the exact opposite direction of "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under God", precisely because of the question "Which God?" or "Who's God?". In my opinion, to protect all citizens conforming to numerous religions there ought not to be any special preferences for religious groups. That includes the use of Sharia marriage laws and polygamy for Muslims only, in India. Such special dispensation create social chaos and charlatans end up abusing such privileges. They must all be treated equal to each other along with the atheists and the agnostics. Secular! Separation of State & Religion!

Ronald Regan's malapropism "Doviyay no proviyay". This should correctly have been "Доверяй, но проверяй" (Doveryay, no proveryay) meaning "trust but verify". He used this copiously when referring to the Soviets. In my opinion, that should apply to any overt religiosity. From my experience in such matters over the past 4 decades, the whole issue of "tax exempt status", "Incorporation", "Registration", etc. etc. is paving the path for a myriad of "charlatans" defrauding the people and the government.

"non-leadership roles traditionally occupied by women in Hinduism in India" - Not sure who these experts are but they are oblivious to the role of women traditionally in Hinduism. I do admit that over the many millennia "men" have dominated as in many societies and have driven the women to roles of subservience. Let us not forget the insidious forced practice of "Sati" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)]. But in modern India, after decades of dominance by Indira Gandhi (a Kashmiri pundit married to Feroz Gandhi, a Parsi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feroze_Gandhi) and today by Sonia Gandhi (a Catholic from Italy), it would be inaccurate to say the least. Scripturally, Mother, Father, Teacher and then God! This is the hierarchy of reverence recommended in descending order. The connotation is not that God comes last, but that reverence to God would be futile without reverence to parents and teacher (rabbi - Hebrew). I'd contend that such is the case in the US where no woman has yet been bestowed the "head of state" role. The Indians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Thai, Srilankans and even the Germans have all managed to elevate a woman to the "head of state" role way ahead of us in the US.

In my opinion, Christianity has little to do with "Genesis", or "immaculate conception of Mary", or "the virgin birth of Jesus", or "the dual nature of Christ", or "Crusades" or other poppy-cock! It is the simple example of Jesus as the man! He, I'm sure, would have disapproved of all these controversies.

http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/end-violence-against-women

Charles! I've never heard atheists proselytizing and wanting to convert others zealously to their way yet. They did create conditions to facilitate. Sure, I'm aware of the cruelty demonstrated to the "religious" in Communist revolutions. I'd oppose that as much as I'd resist the religious imposing their brand of theism.

"inherent code of responsibility in every religion". This is really what I'm most skeptical about. It implies that there was no such responsibility prior to "my" religion. Well, that would be patently untrue! We as humans precede any religion. If you add up all the human carcasses stuck in the ground as a consequence of religious disagreement since religions dominated our world, you would add up to & exceed the cumulative human demise prior to the inception of religion. They've found mass dinosaur graves due to calamity not human as we do now due to religious differences. My grasp of the obvious seems secure. I bet!

Hi Ravi --

I pretty much agree with all you say. Here's the deal, though: why would it not make sense to you that religion came about at least in part to reflect what humans everywhere have believed represents the highest potential within us? That is all I really was getting at in the 'responsibility' remark.

Thanks for the observation.

'reckless and offensive statements to questions that are specifically sensitive for Jews' Such statements about any group should be offensive. But it would be up to each of us to be offended and express so, freely. Almost as freely as these "clever" articulating folk.

If my faith in my deity and theology depended on others' PoV (points of view) then I may really need some religious intervention on account of my weak faith. This includes those who build statues in their quest for heaven and those that think such objects obstruct their path to it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/85210325@N04/10221065324/

Ravi,

There are different manner to be an atheist and there are much more manner to be religious. Some atheists are proselith and dogmatist as some religious are. But some religious are not proselith and dogmatis as some atheist are. My contention is that all forms of atheisms are religious forms which have in common the rejection of a super-natural realm (like many other religions) which includes any God entity assume to exist in such super-natural realm. My contention is that it is intrinsic to the built-in theory of mind in the homo sapiens sapiens mind to be religious. How this religiosity is articulated in a given social setting varies a lot. What is common to all human behavior which for me to attribute the term religious is that we think using basic dynamics which originated from our primate ancestor and which had to internalized other minds as internal actors using these built-in dynamics. Historically we have expressed in myths but even the most sophisticated scientific theory are created within these dynamics. When someone choose to be atheist, he choose a certain vision of the world, probably supported by its interpretation of the scientific vision of the world, he is doing so with the same religious cognitive dynamic than any other humans although contrary to the overtly religious persons, he/she wrongly assume that he/she is not religious in order to escape the naive mythic mode of thinking. But in fact it is even more naive than to overtly assume a faith because the dynamic of their own faith become even more invisible to an atheist than to a religious person. And it is this invisibility of the atheist faith that is dangerous.

"it is this invisibility of the atheist faith that is dangerous". Is "atheist faith" an oxymoron? Fortunately, the "atheists" aren't congregating or synergizing! My understanding of history does not help me conclude as you Louis! I beg to differ. It is the visibility and over arching desire to make all "unbelievers" in to "believers" of some (many times) demented notion of theism that is dangerous. In my opinion, there is nothing unifying about fundamentalist theism. There are more schisms in there, than there are wrinkles on the back of my hand. It is a joke, if the Orthodox may not share communion with the Catholic, or the Shia with the Sunni, or adhering to the Hindu caste system for Nirvana. I'd like to distinguish between genuine piety and zealous need to convert others to "my" way. We are not discussing logic, we are discussing faith. I am reminded of the old adage - A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAx9os1KxN0#!

As A Man Thinketh by James Allen - "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZC3v3LzrWY

Ravi,

Where there are humans there will be dissentions. Did the officially atheistic communists agree more among themselves because they were atheists? Did they kill less their opponents? I think that when politic is involved, people will kill each other based on whatever criteria we can imagine: blue eyes versus brown eyes, fat versus skinny, long hair versus short hair.

Louis! Granted, that could explain some of the casualties this century. You cannot blame the commies for the rest of nearly 2.5 Millennia. Karl Marx was a lot more recent than Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Zoroaster, etc. We all need to get our heads out of the sand. We are not talking about the "hair police" but the "thought police"! We are not debating the existence of "dissentions" among free people but a supercilious religion emoting folks to "kill". "based on whatever criteria we can imagine: blue eyes versus brown eyes, fat versus skinny, long hair versus short hair" - You're stretching the envelope of credibility here! Was it politics that encouraged the US Christian "pilgrims" to magnanimously give shelter to the "suffering Negros" from Africa as slaves (carrying the tusk for a Stradivarius) and then breed them like animals then auction their children? Or for that matter, evict the "Native" out of their "Teepee"! What form of "communism" would justify that? Their religion/faith at that time cleared their conscience. Having said that, it was those very same folk who also fought for emancipation and came up with the "Bill of Rights" that my family & I enjoy today despite our "tan". They deserve a lot of credit!

"I think that when politic is involved, people will kill each other". Quite contrary, the urge to kill is more latent when religion is involved. Remember - pilgrims, Europe, persecution, etc. etc. Were the Jews persecuted for over 2 Millennia now, due to communism, politics or religion? I was born & bred in a country and society torn to shreds by religious bickering. I have actually seen and experienced the results. My father fought the commies and risked his life to preserve the freedom of religion for nearly 1Billion people (Hindu, Muslim, Shia, Sunni, Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Communist, Sikh, Paarsi, etc.) in 1962. However, on matters such as this I do realize that "A man convinced against his will.............still" and therefore find it futile to proceed.

I, as a conservative, will vehemently resist any form of theism creeping in to our political system. Keep the philandering preachers out of politics. Look how they've shred to bits the credibility of the Catholic laity in the US community of Catholics. Can't even trust them with our kids. That's disgusting, to say the least!

Religions should flourish with out the connivance of a "Government". Government must function without adulteration through a "Religion". No religion or religious entity should condone or have the ability, desire, or reason to terminate a human because that individual changed theology or faith or belief. No exception to that! East, West, North or South! Universally! If a "faith" needs to keep its flock under threat of death then it is no faith at all. I'm sure you have no such compulsions attached to your faith just as I none terminally attached to my faith.

I applaud you all for a valiant effort in presenting exceptional intellectual content. I cannot but "up vote" each contribution once I read. I prefer to take issue in content instead. I didn't relish history, social studies, & language growing up. I was more in to the sciences.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/85210325@N04/10221987094/lightbox/

Gwen! While we are on the subject of "transplanted Islam, whether coerced or not", the Kashmiri Pandit could be chalked up as an additional casualty along with the present day Kashmiri population. Some of the historical lessons other societies have experienced may help us address the issues you have raised in your very insightful question much better. Open-minded, high intellectual content, civil, free discussion such as here, is one way to crack the myth. Best regards!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_Pandit

Ravi,

Our personal beliefs play a huge role in how we view our own life. Your estimation of your successes and failures will depend entirely on the framework of your personal beliefs. Our beliefs provide a structured process through which we evaluate everything in our lives. Do you know that the qualities that the most people are most annoyed with in others are most likely that those qualities they possess themselves and therefore, unconsciously blame themselves for? It is very handy, anyone can do it. It requires efforts and is painful experience to look more inside oneself, if one goes under this pain find in the end – “Yes, it is I.” That is exactly why people are unknowingly are upset from themselves.

Ravi, it does not matter to me whether you are theist or atheist. Everyone should have right to choose his/her path. You said “Religions should flourish without the connivance of a "Government". Government must function without adulteration through a "Religion". No religion or religious entity should condone or have the ability, desire or reason to terminate a human because that individual changed theology or faith or belief”. It is alright with me as well as for you. But, you don’t know that you are asking for too much idealism. If sane voices like that of Louis could not make you reflect, then go back a little back on this thread wherein Gwen in response to my post informs us of a well founded reality, “Firoz, to be fair, I must quote from a Swedish sociologist (one of my mentors) whose comments sort of take the wind out of my sails in that they make irrelevant my Tripartite Theoretical Model (TTM):

"Neither the demystification of societal institutions nor structural differentiation necessarily results in a diminution of religious influence in a society or in its people. Indeed, one ought to question whether the demystification of institutions or structural differentiation has anything at all to do with the influence of religion, either in society or in the individual conscience. In other words, why not discontinue thinking of religion in connection with laws and legislation? Indeed, it is quite conceivable that humans retain religious faith and keep religious meaning in their lives so long as all societal institutions are considered God-given and so long as all religious institutions fulfil important societal functions without regard for their religious character" (Gustafsson, 2000, "Tro, samfund och samhälle: Sociologiska perspektiv"; my translation from Swedish, cited at p. 51 of my Dissertation)

Now, if one asks you to give your atheism or become part of a value system losing your identity and way of life, I wonder what will be your reaction? An identity religious or non-religious is an identity highly valued by a person. I may be a faithful Muslim or Muslim born in a Muslim family acculturated in the value of the family, if one asks me without pointing out irrelevance of that identity, I shall remember Karna (in terms of traditional wisdom, not as a Hindu) who was not ashamed of his family in which he was brought, rather challenged Arjuna on the ground of Samarth (capability).

I have nothing against Kashmiri Pandits, rather sympathetic to their wretched conditions, but please go through the pain of soul searching and tell out of what affinity you pointed out sufferings and pain of Kashmiri Pandits as reason of Hindu identity or humanity. If the latter be the case, why you did not mentioned Albanian and Bosnian Muslims who suffered much more.

Ravi,

Thank you for the Kashmiri Pandit link. Incidentally, because of one of your earlier comments ("I, as a conservative, will vehemently resist any form of theism creeping in to our political system. Keep the philandering preachers out of politics.") I am eager to get your input on three of my other open questions:

1. Is it inconsistent with the principle of Secularism to allow public bodies to open their public meetings with prayers? https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_inconsistent_with_the_principle_of_Secularism_to_allow_public_bodies_to_open_their_public_meetings_with_prayers

2. FBOs providing social services to the public in lieu of the welfare state -- good idea or does it suck? https://www.researchgate.net/post/FBOs_providing_social_services_to_the_public_in_lieu_of_the_welfare_state--good_idea_or_does_it_suck

3. Is strict separation of church and state preferable in today's multicultural and religiously diverse societies? https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_strict_separation_of_church_and_state_preferable_in_todays_multicultural_and_religiously_diverse_societies.

Ravi, if you have an interest in posting on any or all of these questions, I would certainly appreciate your taking the time to do so. All of my questions on RG are motivated by my current scholarship interests so I am in search of viewpoints that will help me broaden my somewhat limited perspective (I am a sociologist/ethicist/lawyer).

Thanks,

Gwen

Firoz! I'm not suggesting for "you to give your atheism or become part of a value system losing your identity and way of life". But I'm clarifying that it not be imposed on others who are unwilling by-standers. Secular Government is not one that asks "you to give your atheism or become part of a value system losing your identity and way of life". It is an exclusion of "atheism" as much as "theism" from Governance. In fact, exercising one's religious beliefs (without coercing others) should be totally unimpeded as long as it has nothing to do with Public Policy. The exercise of one's theological objective should be independent of any other entity or individual. Specifically, such exercise should not impede other citizens be they theist, atheist or agnostic.

I changed the etc.... etc.. in prior post to include "Bosnia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Serbia". I'm sure there are more that I have missed. That should in no way diminish their plight or that of the Christians and Shias targeted/persecuted in Pakistan or Egypt even today. In Pakistan the Government is using some sort of an antiquated British Law regarding "Blasphemy" to persecute some Christians. I'm certain some suffer in India too. My family & I have always done our best to treat all as equal. I'm sure you have legal recourses in India for such travesties as well. The law there protects all citizens with no prejudice.

I didn't mind Nehru or Indira Gandhi. But if they had espoused their brand of theism into the Indian Government, then I'd object to them as well. The collusion of Governments and Theocrats is a dangerous recipe. Such concoctions have ultimately failed unequivocally from the historical perspective. Even the Saudi theocracy (or whatever it is) is on shaky ground today. There is nothing unifying that part of the world except their manufactured objection and hatred for Israel. The way folks treat each other there is reason enough for religion to be banished from many of these people who have no appreciation nor tolerance for it.

"who suffered much more" is a question only the bereaved party could accurately asses and describe. I'm in no position to evaluate relative suffering. I have some sense of it through anecdotes and historical perspectives. Just like in the case of "Statistics", this "historical perspective" bit has to be tempered with some "critical thinking" from each of us. Including the thoughts of some "Swedish sociologist". I must confess I have not fully read through all the opinions yet. I will endeavor. I express only my opinion.

The religious need to get a sense of humor and a good dose of faith. It will reduce doubt! If asking them to stop castigating others for non-conformity is "asking for too much idealism", then that's what we have going on in the "free world" today. Meaning, "mind your own religion"! Keep it in your heart, mind and family. Or share with anyone else who willingly participates. No coercion!

Karna, Arjuna, Mahabharata, Dasharatha, Kaikeyi, Rama, Sita, Hanuman - all mythology, in my humble opinion. Admittedly, there are still human lessons to be learnt from these stories. That lesson definitely excludes the merits of polygamy as practiced by the principals of Ramayana. But, so are there many other lessons that we as humans haven't learnt from our cohabitants on earth, animals. They seem to have learnt to live a lot more cohesively than us, the superior creatures. They kill only when threatened or when hungry. But surely not because one was herbivore or carnivore. Certainly not for a difference in opinion or faith. I feel as much or more for the suffering of the present day Kashmiri Muslim living under constant threat of Government, Religion or Terrorism. The Kashmiri Pandit is virtually extinct in Kashmir today and so inconsequential presently. I happen to actually empathize with you. I shall never compromise on the separation of Religion/Church/Mosque/Temple/Synagogue & Government!

The Indians are rocketing to Mars while we discuss such trivialities!

http://world.time.com/2013/11/05/india-races-to-space-with-a-mission-to-mars/#!

Gwen! I appreciate the confidence. I'm just a layman. I throw in my "two bits" when it interests me. I've barely been able to examine but a few comments and the caloric value of the discussion is rising already. Vigorous intellectual discourse excites me! It's fun when things are cooking!

Since you admitted the guilt of being a lawyer, here's a couple of lawyer jokes for all:

1. What is the difference between a lawyer and a skunk both run-over by a truck on the road?

2. What is worse than a bus full of attorneys falling off a cliff?

It could well have been a Realtor, or an Engineer, or a Sciologist instead of the lawyer, but that wouldn't be as funny when you hear the answers.

Best regards!

Ravi,

It is possible for a person to shun concept as mythology. But, on another look it may appear that there are encrypted conventional value system and ethos. I cannot leave my commonly held ethos. I cannot let down my family, my community and my nation. I can never be ashamed of value system which holds too many communities together in spite of differences of religion, language, race and on several other grounds. I can leave my nation only if it becomes aggressive or expansionists and starts dictating its own terms instead of negotiation with understanding.

Ravi,

I do not know from where you have got seal of authority (degrees etc.) and have no intention to know; only one’s words are enough to look into on merit. Please note that seal of authority most times than none put so much pressure on one’s thinking that instead of becoming independent, one feels chained.

With love and affection,

MFK

Hi Ravi,

I know the answer to Question 1 so I will give that now. Don't tell me the answer to Question 2 until I tell you "I give up."

The difference between the skunk and the lawyer is that the lawyer (or her surviving relatives) will file a tort action in a U.S. District Court under ATCA (Alien Tort Claims Act) and die independently wealthy; whereas the skunk will be removed from the road by the Sanitation Department and the driver who ran over it and left it there to rot will be fined $250 for littering a public highway. Such is life in the litigious society in which I live. For more on ATCA, see my paper on RG entitled: "Global Civil Society and the Communitarian Lawsuit: Using ATCA to Express Global Moral Outrage".

Gwen

Hi Ravi,

Please stop posting these YouTube links; it discourages other scholars from staying on topic. Recall that my questions are asked so that I can obtain different viewpoints on the issues raised -- input that will help expand my perspective and enrich my scholarship.

Ravi, please reread the question that we are dealing with on this link and only post responses that are on point. Also do not include links that are not relevant to the topic. If you feel the need to share those links, please send them to me privately at the following e-mail address: [email protected].

Incidentally, not everyone likes to read material written by motivational speakers like Dale Carnegie. This is because a lot of this positive thinking stuff was aimed at sales persons to help them make difficult sales. So, Ravi, I don't think references to that type of material is very useful in that most scholars reading these posts are in search of interesting viewpoints with respect to an ongoing debate in the academy -- not in search of material that will assist them in selling unnecessary products to consumers with too much discretionary income.

Thanks,

Gwen

Bello,

"Do you mean this Galtung:

"On August 8, 2012, the World Peace Academy in Basel, Switzerland announced it was suspending Galtung from its organization, citing what it posited were his 'reckless and offensive statements to questions that are specifically sensitive for Jews'" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Galtung)??????

If this is your man, please give me the exact titles of work by him that you deem germane to a discussion of the HDI, especially since you apparently think of Galtung as a preferable "voice of reason" to the authors/sociologists/philosophers/social theorists mentioned by me and Charles".

Thanks,

Gwen

"I did not say 'preferable' voice, but 'another view' of the concept of development. So, maybe just this: "A Structural Theory of Imperialism" Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 8, No.2 (1971), 81-117."

Bello

"You go, Gwen :)"

CS Herrman

Hello, I wish I could get your response to clear my head. I'm I thinking properly assuming that the Galtung material presents 'another view' on the concept of development?

Let me put it in context. Is this material relevant to the discussion on this thread (or at the point it came up as an issue)?

Bello

Bello,

Are you trying to start a fight with me?

Gwen

And you think Dale Carnegie is irrelevant? No wonder. Lol!

Gwen! I got all the videos out. Did you want the one left, out as well? I'll be glad to oblige. Just say the word.

Short answer to your question is absolutely yes! Unless religions and archaic thought processes evolve they will suffer the ultimate fate of irrelevance among the followers eventually. No amount of threats to life and liberty will restrain them.

Firoz! Thanks of unshackling me. I'm only immersed in my culture and tradition since I was born. So my authority on my own mythology is still improving. But thanks for keeping me humble again.

BTW "Karna, Arjuna, Mahabharata, Dasharatha, Kaikeyi, Rama, Sita, Hanuman - all mythology" is no insult to a Hindu. There is sufficient room to flex in the theology. Besides, my opinions do not hinder the faithful in their quest of Nirvana (Salvation)!

"Bello,

Are you trying to start a fight with me?

Gwen"

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Never! Ok. I understand. (Understand what?) Well, I understand that I should continue reading (and learning). Just the student that I am, remember?

Nice talking with you Prof., always (you should see my smile . . . )! Thank you for the encouragement.

Let me offer my humble services. Though most of your research have concentrated in Europe and America, I should give you a line of interest in Africa. How much of the multi-cultural, multi-religious communities of especially West Africa have you explored? Your teasers are also relevant to the African environment unless you elect to ignore material that have been produced from research in your particular interests. I am talking about post colonial settings that the majority of the western academia have limited to just the studies of Egypt (in relation to Islam). Nigeria is a practical example of a 'melting pot' of diversities. How has the country remained 'intact' since amalgamation in 1914? Was it just a structural/institutional binding or mere chance that the multi-religious (and often mutually antagonistic) groups have remained together (no thanks to Boko Haram and its western (terrorist) interpretations)?

I hope and pray you may be interested in 'expanding' your thesis.

Bello

What is this word "fight' for. For dignity or honour, I don't think there is any room for fighting in academia. scholars argue, agree or don't agree, they don't fight. If i start fighting my students due to their divergent views, it is taken in my country as a case of intimidation. Let the students grow. They have right to put you in an uneasy situation, it is you who have to come out of the situation to the satisfaction of students.

It is another thing, I don't understand your expressions and use of words as words mean something else than literal meanings. Since, I am not in trained in the such a subtle use of English language, I may be confused.

"They have right to put you in an uneasy situation, it is you who has come out of the situation to the satisfaction of students." I really like that, Firoz, it is the pure cult of honor from which the profession evolved. It is also one of the remaining examples pretty much alive and well in modern university education, whence I don't think that it's really much of an issue these days; I had no problems while at college and when I teach metaphysics I strongly urge students to challenge anything that leaves them quizzical. I think anyone who takes learning seriously thinks and acts likewise.

Apologies for this being s bit off-topic, I would owe Gwen the respect of speaking for herself.

The word "fight" these days is used tantamount to "protest" by all politicians to further dramatize their propaganda! The real fighting among people is now euphemistically called "struggle", "resistance", etc. Their demise is euphemistically termed as Martyrdom ("Shahidi"). I notice the use of that word in Al Jazeera! It is ironical that they use the same word for the causalities on both sides. You are right, meanings of word can change with time, context and use.

Sorry, I had the wrong context/content briefly.

Happy Thanksgiving USA! Shalom Alay Chime! Peace! Pace! Salaam! Shanti! Goble Goble! US Turkeys line up at the Indian Embassy in NYC seeking asylum!

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/wild-turkey/

Re Firoz: " It is another thing, I don't understand your expressions and use of word as words mean something else than literal meanings. Since, I am no in trained in the use of such a subtle use of English language, I may be confused."

Hi Firoz,

No, you understood me correctly. I was asking Bello if he was trying to agitate me so that we might come to blows. However, he assured me that he had no ill intent ("always the eager student"). So, I am forced to deal with the 1971 article he cited in a manner befitting a scholar -- rather than a pugilist. However, today is Thanksgiving Day and I am expecting a house full of people for the Thanksgiving banquet; hence, no time for reading and research, only cooking.

Hi Hemanta,

My friend Prema is bringing three Indian dishes, one of which is my favorite : Upma.

I will talk with her about Hinduism as a culture rather than a religion.

Hi Charles,

Since I couldn't impress with egg nog cookies, I made an apple crumb pie from apples grown in my yard.

Hi Ravi,

Happy Thanksgiving back to you. Did you know it was the first AND LAST friendly meal the Native Americans had with the Pilgrims (who turned out to be real turkeys)?

Gwen

Doggie bags? Happy Thanksgiving, Gwen.

Lol! There went religion & peace again. Sacrificial "Turkeys" not lambs!

I have a house full of Turkeys I'm gleefully entertaining today. My euphemism for my daughter's and my "in-laws". You better know this is in genuine jest. No mal-intent Gwen! I don't trust attorneys, you know. I don't want to end up the Turkey in the asylum house.

"Upma" - delicious but all carbs. Works well with "cracked wheat" or "oat meal" as well. Bon appetite!

"I will talk with her about Hinduism as a culture rather than a religion." Talk to Prema about it as a religion too. Nothing should offend a Hindu or affect their faith, really except knowingly or inadvertently slipping beef or meat to a devout vegetarian. Faith and home inculcation (family) is one of the reasons they are still around despite nearly a millennium of "coercion and transplanting". Just check. You'll be amazed at the varieties of views. I'd say in India, for every 50 miles radius, food habits change, language changes, the clothing changes not including religion. What proportion of "culture" would you estimate them (food, clothes, language) to be? BTW you could easily Google all this accurately. I'm no authority. You'll be amazed at how that culture survives & adheres with deep family roots despite the odds. Some prejudices run deeper than faith, very few. It is not perfect!

"Egg nog cookies" - What's the venue again? Address? I'd love to, but resist due to my sugar spike just by hearing the name. I'll have to pop a few pills today to keep it in check. I love the "stuffing" and "cranberry sauce". I save the turkey for torture the rest of the weak.

What's "pugilist"? ["My Fist Your Face"?!@#*&%(:-o LOL! That must be the motto of Pale Carnegie School of Compromise] I'll look up as well. Does it have anything to do with the "let my Turkeys go" group? We'll be inundated with Turkey for the rest of the week. Turkey salad, soup, sandwich, etc. etc. Love it! We use special exhausts, candles, incense etc. in our house to accommodate the keen olfactory sensibilities of my vegetarian parents that don't even cook or eat eggs these days. No living or dead creatures get near their meals. They'd walk away rather than devour any serendipitous encounters. Goble! Goble!