Couple of days ago was my birthday. I received a card from my daughter who is now in her 3rd year at MSU. This is what she penned on the card :
“ I just want you to know,
You mean the world to me,
Only as heart as dear as yours,
Would give so unselfishly.
The many things you’ve done,
All the times that you were there,
Helps me know deep deep inside,
How much you really care.
Even though I might not say,
I appreciate all you do,
And I’m glad to have,
A father just like you! “
I deeply appreciate and cherish her thought of me as her father. Sincerely !
Monday, July 28, 2008
CONGREGATION OF FAITHS
Few weeks ago the world’s religious leaders, including the Pope himself, met to discuss on worldly and spiritual issues especially pertaining to differences in religious opinion. The subject of the congregation is to seek common consensus and to instill common understanding, respect and trust among each other.
As a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Hinduism, Jewish, Shintos and some others - we all share common traits - we all believe in GOD (whoever or whatever HE is); we pray to HIM periodically for peace of mind and for self prosperity. All these religions profess and instill good values to its followers – good against evil; do good deeds to all and avoid evil and unjustice acts to others.
So, what’s the differences between these religions? Nothing much actually except that of “MEANS OF FAITH”. Differences – the definition of GOD, method of praying, different sacred books, and religious rules and regulations. Religious teachings are basically along the same line of faith promoting healthy living consciousness among its followers and to respect the freedom of other faiths.
Deep within every religion, there bound to have certain group of followers who are categorized as “fanatics”. There religious fanatics make use of religion as a means of escapism – they interpret the sacred books to their wishes; disregard the existence of other religions; and instill fear among others including their peer followers.
These fanatical groups should be done away with, once and for all! Religious militancy are usually born from these fanatical groups moving towards terrorism instilling fears among world population and leads to misunderstanding and feuds between religions.
Even within the establishment of major religions, there exist various factions of discord and disharmony – Roman Catholics vs Protestants vs Orthodox; Sunni vs Shiites; Tibetan Buddhism vs Chinese Buddhism etc etc etc.
If we all do belief in GOD, pray to HIM, ask for his blessings and wants to have a prosperous life together, the why should there be feud and infighting among us? If such a case we should just discard our faith and perhaps covert to ATHEISM? The answer lies with each and every individual of us!!!
The congregation of faiths is a positive platform to undermine these issues; and perhaps it should be held more often than not.
As a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Hinduism, Jewish, Shintos and some others - we all share common traits - we all believe in GOD (whoever or whatever HE is); we pray to HIM periodically for peace of mind and for self prosperity. All these religions profess and instill good values to its followers – good against evil; do good deeds to all and avoid evil and unjustice acts to others.
So, what’s the differences between these religions? Nothing much actually except that of “MEANS OF FAITH”. Differences – the definition of GOD, method of praying, different sacred books, and religious rules and regulations. Religious teachings are basically along the same line of faith promoting healthy living consciousness among its followers and to respect the freedom of other faiths.
Deep within every religion, there bound to have certain group of followers who are categorized as “fanatics”. There religious fanatics make use of religion as a means of escapism – they interpret the sacred books to their wishes; disregard the existence of other religions; and instill fear among others including their peer followers.
These fanatical groups should be done away with, once and for all! Religious militancy are usually born from these fanatical groups moving towards terrorism instilling fears among world population and leads to misunderstanding and feuds between religions.
Even within the establishment of major religions, there exist various factions of discord and disharmony – Roman Catholics vs Protestants vs Orthodox; Sunni vs Shiites; Tibetan Buddhism vs Chinese Buddhism etc etc etc.
If we all do belief in GOD, pray to HIM, ask for his blessings and wants to have a prosperous life together, the why should there be feud and infighting among us? If such a case we should just discard our faith and perhaps covert to ATHEISM? The answer lies with each and every individual of us!!!
The congregation of faiths is a positive platform to undermine these issues; and perhaps it should be held more often than not.
ANARCHISM
- normally associate with disorder, chaos, lawlessness, revolution, mayhem, rebellion etc.
Anarchism basically is a political theory that is opposed to all forms of government. Arnachists believe that the highest attainment of humanity is the freedom of individuals to express themselves, unhindered by any form of repression or control from without. They hold that the perfection of humanity will not be attained until all government is abolished and each individual is left absolutely free. One limitation on such freedom, however, is the ban against injuring other human beings. From this limitation arises another : if any human being attempts to injure others, all well-meaning individuals have the right to organize against him or her, and the orderly class may repress the criminal class, although only by voluntary cooperation and not under any governmental organization.
Frenchman Pierre Joseph Proudhon is generally regarded as the father of the system of philosophical anarchism. According to Proudhon and his followers, anarchism would exclude authority from society, setting up extreme individualism. Philosophic anarchists, however, repudiate violent methods and hope for a gradual evolution of society toward anarchic organization. Those anarchists who reject Proudhon’s theories maintain that the entire trend of human development is toward achievement by cooperation and that social cooperation can never be wholly voluntary.
Another school of anarchism, relying on organized action and even deeds of terror to achieve its purposes, grew out of the socialist movement and appeared toward the end of the 19th century.
Philosophic anarchists continue to differ from socialists in their emphasis on freedom from control, especially from state control. Many anarchists participated in the trade union movements, usually as member of unions with a syndicalist programme. Others accepted the terrorist policy and practiced assassinations. Although most anarchists have not advocated terrorism, the popular view has unjustly identified all anarchism with violence. Anarchism declined steadily as a political philosophy and as an organized movement during the second quarter of the 20th century.
In this age of new millennium, there arisen a new form of “anarchism” – those groupings seeking total freedom of speech and total freedom to act under the pretext of human rights from governmental control. In voicing their discontent or displeasure on certain governmental policies and programmes they usually resorted to organizing street demonstrations, public rallies etc which normally leads to public riot and chaos. The actions of riot police in discharging their duties to safeguard public law and order during these public mayhems are usually scrutinised by the so called “human rights watch groups and their respective solicitors”. More often than not, police and governmental actions were negatively publicised and challenged in the court of law.
Perhaps, it is time that philosophical and political scientists coined a new category for these group of “troubled” people!!!!
Anarchism basically is a political theory that is opposed to all forms of government. Arnachists believe that the highest attainment of humanity is the freedom of individuals to express themselves, unhindered by any form of repression or control from without. They hold that the perfection of humanity will not be attained until all government is abolished and each individual is left absolutely free. One limitation on such freedom, however, is the ban against injuring other human beings. From this limitation arises another : if any human being attempts to injure others, all well-meaning individuals have the right to organize against him or her, and the orderly class may repress the criminal class, although only by voluntary cooperation and not under any governmental organization.
Frenchman Pierre Joseph Proudhon is generally regarded as the father of the system of philosophical anarchism. According to Proudhon and his followers, anarchism would exclude authority from society, setting up extreme individualism. Philosophic anarchists, however, repudiate violent methods and hope for a gradual evolution of society toward anarchic organization. Those anarchists who reject Proudhon’s theories maintain that the entire trend of human development is toward achievement by cooperation and that social cooperation can never be wholly voluntary.
Another school of anarchism, relying on organized action and even deeds of terror to achieve its purposes, grew out of the socialist movement and appeared toward the end of the 19th century.
Philosophic anarchists continue to differ from socialists in their emphasis on freedom from control, especially from state control. Many anarchists participated in the trade union movements, usually as member of unions with a syndicalist programme. Others accepted the terrorist policy and practiced assassinations. Although most anarchists have not advocated terrorism, the popular view has unjustly identified all anarchism with violence. Anarchism declined steadily as a political philosophy and as an organized movement during the second quarter of the 20th century.
In this age of new millennium, there arisen a new form of “anarchism” – those groupings seeking total freedom of speech and total freedom to act under the pretext of human rights from governmental control. In voicing their discontent or displeasure on certain governmental policies and programmes they usually resorted to organizing street demonstrations, public rallies etc which normally leads to public riot and chaos. The actions of riot police in discharging their duties to safeguard public law and order during these public mayhems are usually scrutinised by the so called “human rights watch groups and their respective solicitors”. More often than not, police and governmental actions were negatively publicised and challenged in the court of law.
Perhaps, it is time that philosophical and political scientists coined a new category for these group of “troubled” people!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
