WHY JANUARY 22?

Will anyone oppose building a temple in India? Of course, no one will. An organization or a recognized authority definitely can build the temples wherever they want provided it does not damage the harmony of the country. People of different Religions coexist peacefully in this land and a basic tolerance is an unofficial or natural demand that is expected of every citizen of the country. 

Hence a Temple can definitely be built, and so too a mosque or a church. I hope and expect that the new mandir that is built in Ayodhya will ensure the safety and security and peaceful co-existence of the other religious people living around the temple and elsewhere in the country. Though it has already become a political temple, I want it, at least here after to become a religious symbol rather than a political symbol. 

Well. However, I have a question to raise? Why did they choose January 22 for the inauguration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya? This is a question that might not have been asked by many. why was this date chosen for the inauguration of the mandir and not something else? Is this date the most auspicious date in the calendar year? Or is it the birthday of Shri Ram? or a Random date that is chosen before the General Election of the country?

I was thinking that the date was a random date chosen until I received a whats-app message yesterday. we have been such fools to forget the most brutal murder that damaged the name of the country, namely the gruesome murder of Pastor Graham Staines. the murder took place on 23 January 1999. It marks January 22 marks the completion of 25 years of the murder of the Christian missionary?

Is the date for the inauguration chosen at random? Even if the nation does not want to know, let the nation decide...

What is the good that a ‘good’ business does?

What is the good that a ‘good’ business does?[1]

Although the title of the book is the good that business does, Robert G. Kennedy in the sixth chapter develops an idea of ‘a good business’.  He is also developing the idea that how business is aiming at the collective or the common good to the people at large. Although the book is aimed at seeking further intercourse between the catholic teaching and business, it also leaves an open space to raise some questions with regard to the theme developed.

It is true that when a business is called good and bad, the same distinction can be applied to other spheres of human endeavor too:  in the field of aesthetics one could speak of a good art and a bad one; in the field of ethics one could speak of a good act and a bad act; in the field of medicine one could speak of a good treatment and a bad treatment or a good medicine or a bad one, at a more larger and wider context one could speak of a good religion and a bad religion as well. I think that it is a good idea [!] to make distinction between good and bad.

I think that there is a difference between asking what is business and a good business. One of the fundamental features of a business is profit-making. Hence one can speak of good that comes out of the profit-making; even within profit making how certain good is contributed to the society.

I am sure that the substantial difference lies in the answer that one gets to these questions.

---

[1] This article is just a reflection on reading the following book. Cf. Robert G. Kennedy, The Good that Business Does (Acton Institute, 2006). This is not a response to the book. The questions raised here are some spontaneous questions that came to me. It is never intended to review the book, nor to refute what is suggested there.

Religiosity and Richness

Why do people go to the Temple or praise God? May be, because they have everything in life. We praise God because we have all the wealth and enjoy all the benefits of the human world and therefore we are concerned about the higher life. This would mean that the rich praise God or that praising God becomes possible when we become rich. In other words, only when our lower needs are fulfilled we will be concerned about our higher needs.  Abraham Maslow had talked about the hierarchy of needs. If religious belief is concerned with the higher or fuller life this means that one’s belief is to be concerned with the higher life. It should mean that only the rich are very particular to praise God. We hear and read that people throw gold and money in some famous temples and Churches. The offering can be seen as the sign that they do not value money so much compared to God and his magnanimity. They are able to tell God – Money or gold is nothing in front of God –.

On the contrary we also know that the poor people are more religious than the rich. Jesus valued the small coin thrown in the offertory box. He also said that there will be always poor with you. Although he had said this in a different context, it seems to me that the passage can be interpreted to mean that these poor will always be there visiting the temple and they will be always faithful. It is obvious that the poor outnumber the rich in marching towards the temples and Churches. When one compares a country like India with the Western countries which are quite well off one can very well understand that they do have less believers and church attendance.[1]

It seems then that the claim that the rich will seek God seems to be false. God is not sought only when one is rich but there is something more to belief and not simply the material welfare. It can be argued that the poor rush to the Churches in order to seek the material welfare, seeking the help of God to attain human welfare. If the poor praise God only to receive material goods, then basic need is not God but my hunger, my clothing and house, in this sense Maslow may seem to be right. I doubt whether this can simply be associated with human needs of hunger. There seems to be more to this. The regular attendance, the affinity to religion can be awakened and one’s explicit identification with a particular religion can also have sociological or political reasons.[2]This affinity to religion can be also seen to be inherent in the human person. That is what some like Paul Tillich called faith as the ultimate concern of the human person.[3] In this sense it seems that the economic relations have nothing to do with the religious beliefs. Poor may be more religious (concerned about the higher life that is inclusive of the ordinary life) not because they lack wealth but in spite of lacking wealth. The rich can also be religious in spite of the wealth they have if they are poor in spirit otherwise the immersion in the world can block the awareness of the ultimacy. Therefore the awareness of one’s need of higher life has an easy access in the poor whereas it seems difficult for the rich.

Does it mean that the poor are really and spontaneously concerned about the ultimacy and the rich are not? Was Job religious because he was rich – or because he was poor in spirit? Or he was rich because he was religious? Did he praise God even when he was poor because he was already poor in spirit – or he became poor because he prayed?

---

[1] I restrict myself here to Europe. I do not want to talk about the United States now. It is true that the United States has more believers and regular attendance of the liturgical celebrations. There are reasons for the differences.

[2] In India the celebration of vinayaga sathurthi has become very popular that can be seen to be associated with the political reasons rather than religious reasons. The question here is about believers therefore the question is raised in the religious context and not others.

[3] Paul Tillich calls the faith as the ultimate concern of the person.

Difference between Christmas and Easter

We had a break in the library. Four of us came out and discussed about the Church, Documents, Pope, Festivals. In the course of the discussion, one of my friends was sharing with us about his conversation with an altar boy during the season of Christmas.

He asked the boy what is Christmas? The boy seemed to have answered - "Christmas means that Child Jesus is risen ."

If that is so what is the meaning of Easter? - one could very well say - "Easter means that Adult Jesus is risen."

My friend was very sad and angry and said how badly we transfer our faith to the younger generation. We don't really pass on the faith narratives to the kids well.

Could any theologian tell me whether that kid, who said Christmas is the celebration of the resurrection of Child Jesus, expressed an important truth about God?
If Jesus as God died to his Godhood and was born to a woman - Could this be considered as resurrection? If Resurrection is dying to one life and being born to a new life, can the birth of Jesus be considered as resurrection?

I am trying to rescue the baby who said that Christmas is the celebration of the resurrection of child Jesus? Do I blaspheme?

God and Evidence - Love and Evidence

I watched an interview – Richard Dawkins was interviewed by Mehdi Hasan for al-Jazeera television which was telecast in December last year. In watching this fifty minutes video, one is pulled in both directions – that of Dawkins and that of Hasan.

Dawkin's main argument is that science is the best method available to us to know the truth: If ‘science’ cannot answer some questions, no other way then is it possible to know the truth. Dawkins made it very clear that we lack evidence with regard to God. Evidence… and … evidence … 

Years back in southern India where the atheistic movements grew strong, they held public meetings to conscientise people of their rights and powers. In between, the speaker would speak about the non-existence of God. Their atheism can be said to be founded on the emancipation of man. They were practical atheists who worked to liberate the common man from the oppressing caste Hinduism. The main arguments were based on the inconsistencies found in the scriptures, oppressive elements and the structures of the religion. At times they would also challenge God – the speaker in a meeting would say: ‘If there is God, let there be no light (Electricity) in ten minutes.’ He would give five or ten minutes to God and seeing that there was light still would conclude – ‘see now, there is no God.’[1]

That is not a very serious argument at all. However, in making this claim was he making himself a God, as an absolute and all powerful Master who could predict the future? May be. One could interpret that way. But I do not think so. If electricity goes off in 10 minutes he would still claim that how can a ‘good’ and benevolent God become a ‘cheap’ god who responds to an ordinary man, one in billions of humans. How could that God be great at all? Or he will claim that this is not because of God but x or y were the cause or some mechanical failure etc. Basically what they were aiming to show is that there is no ‘evidence’ to show that God exists.

In one way or the other what connects an illiterate in south Indian land who embraces atheism for emancipation of humanism and scientists, theoretical atheists Like Dawkins, is Evidence. Apart from the fact whether I disbelieve or not, I will place humanist atheists in a higher rank than scientific atheism.

Well. One of the questions by Hasan to Dawkins was about the possibility of placing evidence in every aspect of human life: Dawkins rephrased the question and answered - How do you know that your wife loves you? He replied – ‘evidence’. I can see love in her eyes, in the voice… – although this is not a scientifically testable.

One could love his wife if she shows that love in her eyes, in her voice, etc. There are also cases where because evidence suggests otherwise, husbands hate wives – divorce them – in some places like in India kill them. Charles Taylor in his A Secular Age speaks of Desdemona analogy when he talks about the validity of the claim ‘science defeated religion’. He says that Othello had a chance to speak to her without being deceived by evidences fabricated by Iago. If Othello had opened his heart to Desdemona he would have known the truth.[2]

Once I am deceived by the evidences, I will not be ready to be open to the alternative view at all. The alternative view is totally hidden from me. The only way is that I have the evidence. The truth value is always something external to me. The alternative view of knowledge is cut off from me.

I only pray that there are no persons who act that they love the other to produce false evidences – and I wish that the there are no persons who like Othello be deceived by the ‘brute’ evidences. I wish that people give 'love' its place and not keeping it within the frame of evidence.
...............................................

The video can be watched online in the following link:

Dawkins on religion - General - Al Jazeera English

---

[1] [To wit: Today no body in Tamil Nadu will take up this challenge or they may reverse the challenge – If there is God let there be light in 10 minutes].

[2] C. Taylor, A Secular Age, pp. 567 – 568.

Secularism Hanged !

India is known to be a secular country which does respect all religions, their worldviews. The ‘neutrality’ can be seen to be the best options available for a secular state. Many events in Indian politics have shown that this neutrality of the government is in theory rather than in practice. One could argue that it is better to be in papers than nothing at all. Confidently some may argue that a ‘kind totalitarian’ is better than a ‘ruthless secular state’. However, it is unthinkable for a modern man to think of monarchy, or totalitarian regime however kind and loveable the rulers are. It is a [?] historical impossibility to throw away the democratic elements of our polity. It is then important that we constantly purify the brutal aspects of theoretically democratic and practically undemocratic elements of the State.

One issue to show how sometimes most respected secular states can fail to establish its own secularity is the case of Afzal. Afzal Guru was hanged recently in Tihar Jail in India without the knowledge of his wife and his son. What is important here in the case of Afzal Guru is to pay attention to the verdict: “In its over300 page judgement the apex court said, ‘The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.’”[1]

The invoking of the collective conscience is important because it means that whole nation is traumatized at what happened in December 2001 – an Attack on the Parliament when the B.J.P. was ruling the country. Afzal Guru was seen to be the culprit although there were no evidences to suggest that he was either directly or indirectly involved in the attack. The judges invoked the ‘collective conscience of the society’. The collective conscience of the society does not definitely include the Muslims of the nation but mostly of the Hindus. The point is when one raises voice against the verdict or the brutal hanging of Afzal, those citizens will be seen not to belong to the ‘collective conscience’ and therefore not as members of the country. Should I consider myself to be part of the collective conscience? It was invoked because the case was one of the rarest of its kind in the country – an attack on the pillar of the nation and Democracy.

In order to satisfy the majority collective conscience, the government / Court has executed the verdict soon after the refusal of the mercy petition by the President of the country. The B.J.P. leaders had earlier raised slogans like “Desh abhi sharminda hai, Afzal abhibhi zinda hai", which means (in stirring rhyme), "Our nation is ashamed because Afzal is still alive.”[2] The B.J.P cannot raises slogans like this in the coming election, because Afzal is no more. The congress will gain popularity also among the Hindus. While all others will keep silence since it will be against the collective conscience. What has been done openly by the B.J.P is done quietly by the Congress: the difference between both kinds of ‘Hindutva’ is the mode of operation – open and secret.

Going beyond evidence and to invoke collective conscience is not new. In the Ayodhya case the honorable judges invoked ‘faith and belief’. To this many like Ashgar Ali  have responded who said: “Tomorrow other judges motivated by their faith may use this judgment as a precedent and deliver other judgments invoking faith….Thus, stretching the argument … in a democracy after all numbers count and so faith of majority community will play greater role than faith of minority community and court of law will thus become majoritarian in their attitude and all the legal values and protection of minorities and their faith in the constitution may be ultimately subverted.”[3]

This raises the question whether a secular state can really be secular forgetting one’s own faith at all in the functions. Will it be possible for the citizens or the responsible office holders to use ‘the veil of Ignorance’ of John Rawls? It seems not... Our deep and ultimate concerns keep coming in different ways.

Although there were gaps in the evidences and arguments, the country needed a perpetrator who will be hanged and in whom the vengeance can be thrown. It can mean that what is stake is the ‘scape goat mechanism’. Girard says: “In the evolution from ritual to secular institutions men gradually draw away from violence and eventually lose sight of it; but an actual break with violence never takes place.”[4]

For the unity and to satisfy the collective thirst for revenge a perpetrator was hanged and our thirst is quenched. May be joining with Arundhathi Roy, one may rightly ask: “Now he has been hanged, I hope our collective conscience has been satisfied. Or is our cup of blood still only half full?”[5]

---

[1] http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_sc-on-afzal-guru-hanging_1798220

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/10/hanging-afzal-guru-india-democracy

[3] Asghar Ali Engineer (2010): “Ayodhya judgment – triumph of faith or constitutional legality?” accessed on 19th October on http://www.csssforum.org/default.as…As quoted in http://www.lebret-irfed.org/spip.php?article450

[4]Rene Girard, Violence and the Sacred, trans. Patrick Gregory(Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1972 [4^th1984]), p. 307.

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/10/hanging-afzal-guru-india-democracy

Courageous, Inspiring and an act of Humility – The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

Courageous, Inspiring and an act of Humility – The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

The letter of the Pope Benedict XVI who announced his resignation this morning shows that he has made this difficult decision after contemplation and prayer.

Dear Brothers,
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is. Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
From the Vatican, 10 February 2013
BENEDICTUS PP XVI[1]

No one would disagree that this is an act of courage that inspiries milions of the followers who will recognise his act of humility. His resignation, although not unprecedented in history, is unprecedented in the courageous act of the present pope. Six hundred years ago, Pope Gregory XII resigned to end schism in the Church however the new pope was not elected till his death.[2] When Pope Benedict XVI was elected the Pope in April 2005, He chose the name 'Benedict' to the surprise of many. He was said to be too old to be the spiritual leader of th Church. But many also thought he would resign when he will not be able to continue his office. He has come out with that courageous act. His resignation has surprised many. The seven years [almost 8 years however since it is not completed we could say only   seven years: it reminds me of the Biblical significance of the number seven] have been the most difficult time for him, but he has withstood them with courage.

His acknowledgment of his defects and seeking pardon [in the letter] is the highest expression of a true Christian and a disciple of Christ. He will be remembered not only in Church History, but also in World History but also in the hearts of many faithful of different religions and denominations.

---

[1] http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-benedict-xvi-announces-his-resignation-at-end

[2] Pope Celestine V would have been the first to make such a decision of courage. Cf. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/02/11/pope-resignations/1908819/But he was imprisoned by the new Pope.

Religious Harmony !

December 6th is a black day for the Indian Democracy. Whatever be the motive for the demolition, I do not know whether this act can be justified. Those who initiated this brutal act may have their reasons and the other party may still have resentment to counter attack. What happens often is that any event, sometimes even a political blunder or some vested interests of the politicians are often identified with religion and therefore they are seen to be religious conflicts rather than the blunder of some politicians or fundamentalism.   

All of us do know that religions, irrespective of their place of origin, keep Love as their central teaching.

Everyone thinks that his religion is the greatest. His religion is the truest and the purest. I do not think that this is wrong. When one believes he accepts a particular creed because it is meaningful to his life. But communicating one’s religious truth often ends up in violent conflicts. One wants to prove his religion’s love and non-violence by violence. Proving one’s love through violence can never be possible.

Comparative studies have shown that non-violence is the foundational teaching of all religions. Mere writings about the message of love or non-violence cannot reduce the religious conflicts. It can be done only with the believers’ act of trust and love. One has to trust the other and more love the other forgiving the mischievous deeds of the other. Only when we find someone transcending the act of rebellion and revenge, trust can be built.

Unless this love is taken to heart

 and we trust and respect and love one another, 

we will not be able to live as true believers.