Statement by Parliament of World's Religions on Orlando Massacre

Forwarded below. In case you can't see it in this email, please see it here: http://parliamentofreligions.org/blog/2016-06-15-1419/statement-homophobic-massacre-lgbtqi-community-members-and-allies-orlando?mc_cid=521af6c299&mc_eid=d15d90372d

My take:
What I love about this Statement is that it exposes the old tactic of responding to one form of hatred with another, while at the same time not falling for the opposite trap of appeasing or over-protecting any side. It calls for some serious accountability, self-examination and reform among the sides in whose name atrocities are being committed or perceived to be so : Something I've seen irresponsibly lacking in most secular bastions till now especially in India.

Who knows? If we didn't have so much appeasement and hypocriisy on one side then maybe it wouldn't have triggered the blanket hatred that has emerged in reaction to it on the other (keywords: "sickular" "pseudo secular" etc). Now please don't take off on a tangent; scroll down and read the mailer that I have forwarded to you also; those words are much better expressing what my own stand is while what I write is usually too open to misinterpretation by peers. <3

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parliament of Religions

To the women in my life

To P, for initiating me on the path of caring for those who are worlds
away from mine.

To S and S, for giving me feedback that I seriously needed, when I
needed it, and thus slaying the monster that I was turning into.

To O, for being so alive and so in-your-face.

To S, for making me realize that to love a woman doesn't mean wanting
her to be with you; it means wanting to see her happy and full of life
wherever she is and whoever she is with.

To A, for showing me that resourcefullness and intellect do not need
to have a well-off financial background.

To X, Y and Z, and subsequently many more, for sharing with complete
trust and vulnerability the pain and trauma of being sexually abused,
for making it so real and close for me that it fundamentally changed
the value systems I'd associated with masculinity.

To P, for making me rethink how our streets can be made safer.

To the attendant at the petrol pump, for making me aware though her
silent terror and insistence on me getting off my bike first, how it
feels to be teased and groped by customers when you're serving them.

To D, for showing me that strength comes from vulnerability.

To L, for helping me notice when walking on the streets together how
fundamentally different it is for a woman to be walking in public in
my country; how much sexual harassment behaviour has been programmed
into our otherwise normal Indian males by the society we're living in.

To S, for displaying a mastery over power tools and hammers and nails
and wood so skillfully that it destroyed my preconceptions of what are
masculine and feminine jobs.

To K, for showing me when it's a good time to shut up and get things going.

To N, for standing up for yourself, having extraordinary courage under
institutional fire, yet remaining vulnerable, and for continuing to
care for those under your charge, even while you were being paraded in
your whole fraternity as a bad person.

To L, for showing me when it's a good time to take a pause and talk
about uncomfortable things.

To S, for showing me how it's not such a good idea to panic about not
being married yet after the 29th birthday. (:P)

To R, for constantly reminding me about the OTHER perspectives that I
was missing out in my understanding of the world.

To S, for showing me how not to take things so seriously, to be and let be.

To V, for showing me how far behind a person can leave their
well-protected, fortress backgrounds to care for their fellow human
beings.

To S, for showing me a life full of compassion and love for all, and
the unlimited extents one can go to and impossible things that one can
do when living such a life.

To R, for showing me how to celebrate differences in opinion and stay
friends with people despite disagreements.

To K, for showing me how superior bottom-up, organic growth in plans
is to top-down "intellectual" planning.

To S, for showing me that being a feminist does not mean being rough
and tough like a man; but rather to celebrate the feminine; to be
delicate, creative, colourful, embellishing, vulnerable, vivacious,
loving and caring.

To R and U, for showing me the powers of openness, generosity, friendship and good feelings for all, and how to age gracefully yet youthfully.

To the women of the villages, for the strength, the generosity, the
self-reliance, the kindness, the full-of-life laughter that you fill
the air with.

Thank you. Hope to keep meeting you again.

My cup of tea

I really need to get conscious and cautious about which cup of tea I'm taking.

Because I'm finding out that I have a much bigger negative reaction to the wrong cup of tea, than most others do.

One cannot blame those offering me the cup of tea... they are used to people who can get along with any cup. In fact, I'm feeling guilty at not being able to satisfactorily gulp down the cup of tea offered so genuinely and generously by people who have no idea of how badly I might react.. how blocked and unable to continue further I might get.

And yep, one can't fully blame the taker either : how am I supposed to know while taking the cup of tea that somewhere down the line it won't settle with me? Or I it? These myriad cups and teas are quite complicated.

Or maybe I need to make myself adapt better to the cups of tea that come my way.

Maybe I need to stop taking, or even checking out multiple cups at the same time.

Maybe while I'm busy drinking one cup, I should avoid getting distracted by the other cups of tea passing by, and focus on the one in hand.

And yet, I can't bring myself to settle on any one particular cup of tea yet. This one might work, but so might that one.

Maybe I need to spend some time without having any cup of tea.

Maybe I need to do all that I have suggested. And temper the extents as per the situation.

In case you're wondering what the heck this post is about, I'll give you a hint : It's not about tea.

Blow the whistle

How to make people think?

How to make people think?

Ask them a question. Ask them what they feel about so and so issue. 

All this time they're constantly being told what to think. For the first time in a long time, let them hear someone asking them what do THEY think. 

Once they've poured out the answer that was residing in their head, 

DO NOT react, even if you disagree with them. Acknowledge them, and Let them be. 

Because now the opinion, the idea has flowed out of their head and been put into words : it has come out of the darkness into the light, where it can be evaluated much better. 

After this, later that day, while they're sleeping, they'll start thinking, pondering, questioning : 

Is that what I truly believe? Is that how I really want things to be? Could there be something else here? 

Who knows, by the next morning, the same person might be thinking about an issue in another way completely.

So get your questions ready, go out there and make people think.

Economics of Happiness Conference, Bangalore, 15 March 2014

http://www.theeconomicsofhappiness.org/conference-2014-india

Localisation : The most strategic way to tackle our escalating social and ecological crises?

 

Over the past 30 years, giant banks and corporations have become wealthier and more powerful than ever before. This has happened because governments, in the name of 'economic growth', have supported ever-increased global trade while neglecting local business potential.  Through a series of 'free trade' treaties, trade and financial deregulation continues today, weakening and impoverishing governments and whole countries. This is the essence of economic globalisation. 

 

Despite the rhetoric of inevitability that supports it, globalisation is a process of planned change — the consequence of government policies that support the profit-driven agendas of big businesses and banks.  These policies include the building up of transport, communications and educational infrastructures tailored to the needs of global corporations; the over-regulation of local and national businesses; and the use of misleading indicators like GDP.

 

Since globalisation is at the root of so many problems, localisation — a shift away from the global and towards the local — is an obvious part of the solution.  

 

The central principles of localisation

 

•    Localisation is the diversification and decentralisation of economic activity.  •    Localisation strengthens human-scale business — especially for basic needs such as food, water, and energy, but also in housing, banking and healthcare.  

 

•    Localisation relies more on human labour and skill and depends less on energy and technology.  

 

•    Localisation requires less transportation, less packaging, and less processing, thereby reducing waste, pollution and fossil fuel use. 

 

•    Localisation adapts economic activity to the diversity of ecosystems, restoring cultural and biological diversity.

 

•    Localisation fosters a deeper connection between people and nature.

 

•    Localisation rebuilds social interdependence and cohesion, providing a more secure sense of identity and belonging, which in turn is a prerequisite for peaceful coexistence.

 

•    Localisation challenges conventional notions of international development, instead reclaiming and regenerating diverse knowledge systems, languages, aesthetics and wisdom traditions.

 

 

Global to local policy changes:

 

¥    The renegotiation of international trade treaties, this time putting local needs first. This means the re-regulation of global trade and finance, along with the relaxation of regulations that currently stifle local trade and finance.

 

¥    A shift in taxes and subsidies that currently favor the large and multinational. Rather than tax labour while subsidising the use of energy and technology, policies need to promote the creation of jobs and livelihoods while minimising the wasteful use of energy and other resources.

 

¥    A re-direction of public investments in infrastructure. Billions are still being invested in creating and improving trade-based infrastructures — superhighways, shipping terminals, airports — while the needs of local economies are being neglected.

 

¥    Government control and regulation of the creation of money and debt.   Leaving these key elements of modern economies in the hands of unaccountable banks and financial institutions has led to reckless speculation and economic collapse, as well as a widening gap between rich and poor.

 

***At the grassroots, a powerful localisation movement is emerging worldwide. India itself has a rich history of innovation and activism. Here and elsewhere, the localisation movement is showing that strengthening community and the local economy can undo many of the problems created by the mad rush towards globalisation.  

 

Central to this new thinking has been the local food movement, which is already demonstrating that shortening the distance between farmers and consumers creates a multitude of benefits, including: healthier and fresher food; more income for farmers; more agricultural and biological diversity; and less pollution and fossil fuel use.  Perhaps most importantly, small, diversified and locally-adapted farms actually produce more food per acre than large industrial monocultures, while reclaiming the food supply from multinational corporations.

 

The same logic that underlies the local food movement applies not only to other aspects of primary production (for example, fisheries and forestry), but to other quite different areas of economic life.  Amongt the countless initiatives already underway are:

 

Via Campesina  Transition Towns  Decentralized renewable energy  Local business alliances  Local banking  Alternative currencies and local bartering  Local stock markets  'Gift economies'  Ecovillages  School gardens  Non-school education   Eco-building        Biodiversity economics  'Counter-development' Anti-Corruption  Inner Transformation

 

We believe that these and many other initiatives like them can gain strength by forging alliances under the localisation banner.  Together, we can build a movement that will challenge the might of the mega-corporations and bring the economy back home. 

 

We invite you to join us!

http://www.theeconomicsofhappiness.org/conference-2014-india

Bitcoin's fall: we need an alternative, not a substitute for money

Bitcoin's fall / flaws being predicted on Dec 5 2013 :
http://stormcloudsgathering.com/bitcoin-what-youre-not-being-told

And it crashes on 10th February 2014 :
http://scgnews.com/bitcoin-flash-crash-80-drop-in-seconds-down-20-after-stabilizing

These guys know their stuff, they called it, and it happened. So now I
would advise the reader to pay attention to the other things they've
been writing / videoing about: http://stormcloudsgathering.com

I think this also brings out a deeper message, and these happenings
are reinforcing it for me.

Bitcoin came about as a result of a hunt for an alternative currency.
But the way of transacting : the buying and selling of materials and
services in an environment of conditionality and selfishness that
we've taken for granted to be the only way things can get done... that
was kept the same. The core was the same, it wasn't rethought.

So Bitcoin was a substitute. Not an alternative.

I don't think that's going to cut it. This is kind of like seeing
there's some problem in education, and substituting the existing
teachers with higher quality replacements, and expecting that that
will solve the problem. That doesn't solve the problem, because we
didn't change the system itself. The education will fail the students
regardless of what substitute teacher we bring in; similary, the
substitute currencies will fail.

The people who went in for Bitcoin, and wanted a decentralized
currency, I don't think they're recognizing that centralizing is an
inevitable consequence and a requirement for the system of
transactions where there's conditionality and selfishness involved.

What we need here is an alternative to that system of transacting. An
alternative that doesn't have conditionality and selfishness inherent
in it. We have to keep in mind that even barter, commonly mistaken to
be the only original mode of transaction, also has conditionality and
selfishness inherent in it. And that's why I hear the cliche, "So
you're saying we should just go back to barter??" The assumption here
is that barter was the origin and we all came from it, hence "go back
to". The brain shuts down there, and no consideration is given to
thinking how families, extended families, indigenous communities, and
even ecosystems and communities in the animal/plant world operate
every day.

I do have a solution in mind and at heart, but I don't think I can do
justice to it in writing it here... I can feel it but would need more
time and space to write it. But there are some wonderful resources I'd
like to point you to. The real alternatives, which do not have
conditionality and selfishness inherent in them, have different names
but common core values. The names go by "Gift Economy", "Giftivism"
etc.

http://charleseisenstein.net/
http://www.servicespace.org/
http://moneyandlifemovie.com/

The invisible religions causing the real harm

There's something I'd like to share regarding organized religions and
the resistance to their domination.
There are some religions that I've noticed only recently, which have
silently taken hold everywhere while making sure that they are not
referred to as religions. Upon some inspection I'm finding them fitting
all the attributes about organized religion that even I stand against.
Mind, I'm not going to slot myself in any box of pro or against
religion; that's another matter.

Coming back to these religions, The alarming thing I'm finding is that
even among people who have since long declared themselves to be free of
any religion, who have spent years advocating against invasion into
people's lives and taking away of human rights on the basis of religion,
I'm finding unquestioned acceptance and loyalty to these religions.
Through their actions, many otherwise very nice people are become
unconscious participants in forcing many fellow humans into
indoctrination into these religions.

This has led me to conclude that these invisible religions are far more
sinister, far more dangerous than Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jewism
and others that have become the favorite blame-target of many
discourses. At many places, I'm finding that even some evils commonly
attributed to the declared religions (like causing wars, for example)
are originally coming from these invisible religions. And by
misdirecting the blame, we're making the invisible religions even more
powerful, all-encompassing while wrongly framing groups of people who
have nothing to do with the evils.

One of those religions is money (in its current form). Another is
compulsory education. And they're both intricately linked to each
other, so they're more like different facets of the same thing.

Why do I think of these as religions? Let me show:

Money is accepted as universally essential for everything. And yet we
don't question or understand properly exactly how it is made, where it's
coming from. At the very root of the chain, there's outright magic
happening (Fed Reserve creates money out of thin air upon creation of a
loan), and even down the chain it doesn't follow any realistic laws
(fractional reserve banking system)

There is a priest-class that creates the money and keeps it going. They
make the rules regarding money, apply them differently to the 'junta'
and differently to themselves... ordinary people can be punished
ruthlessly for violating them whereas those in the order get plenty of
leeway (ex:bank bailouts). They do everything to make sure everyone gets
more and more dependent on this religion. Anyone who tries to make do
without adhering to this religion, is liable to be outcasted and even
attacked and made to comply.

Education is declared and supposed to be accepted as an essential. The
theoretical potential, which practically can never been achieved, is
used to justify the most oppressive conditions. The promise of a
glittering future (structurally designed to be rewarded to less than 1%
of the population) is used to justify destroying the present of the most
vulnerable sections of the population (the children!). Again, those who
oppose it are outcasted and liable to vehement ridicule by all those
around them. Government assistance in certain areas is not extended to
those who do not follow this religion. It is intolerant of non-believers
and declares them inferior, in need of intervention. The priest class
here, ridicules anyone from outside the establishment who dares to
challenge the status quo.

Both money and education seek to separate people from nature. Both are
inherently artificial and do not have much basis in the real world. They
use arbitrary numbers and symbols (GDP and grades, degrees) which have
no real limits, and anything is fair in their pursuit, even wars that
devastate whole countries. Both have proved by now that following them
leads to degradation of society, yet they keep demanding fealty with the
promise of a glorious future.

Both money and education, as they exist today, are well organized. Even
if some components are officially independent of each other, they share
reverance to the same edicts and regulate each other to maintain the
status quo. They have definite origins that can be traced back to
imposition and propaganda by elites. They did not emerge from the
people; they are here not by accident but by design.

We can go on and on, but basically I hope that when we do talk about the
harmful effects of religions, these invisible religions also get taken
into account. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Jewism, etc... these are
not playing the major role in causing the major problems of the world
today. It is the invisible religions we should be taking a stand
against. I invite all atheists and those opposed to religious harm, to
introspect and find the hidden religions they're unknowingly following.

Greed - a natural consequence of Scarcity

Excerpt from Charles Eisenstein's book "Sacred Economics", CHAPTER 2 : THE ILLUSION OF SCARCITY

Greed makes sense in a context of scarcity. Our reigning ideology assumes it: it is built in to our Story of Self. The separate self in a universe governed by hostile or indifferent forces is always at the edge of extinction, and secure only to the extent that it can control these forces. Cast into an objective universe external to ourselves, we must compete with each other for limited resources. Based on the story of the separate self, both biology and economics have therefore written greed into their basic axioms. In biology it is the gene seeking to maximize reproductive self-interest; in economics it is the rational actor seeking to maximize financial self-interest. But what if the assumption of scarcity is false—a projection of our ideology, and not the ultimate reality? If so, then greed is not written into our biology but is a mere symptom of the perception of scarcity.

An indication that greed reflects the perception rather than the reality of scarcity is that rich people tend to be less generous than poor people. In my experience, poor people quite often lend or give each other small sums that, proportionally speaking, would be the equivalent of half a rich person’s net worth. Extensive research backs up this observation. A large 2002 survey by Independent Sector, a nonprofit research organization, found that Americans making less than $25,000 gave 4.2 percent of their income to charity, as opposed to 2.7 percent for people making over $100,000. More recently, Paul Piff, a social psychologist at University of California–Berkeley, found that “lower-income people were more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful to others than were those with more wealth.” Piff found that when research subjects were given money to anonymously distribute between themselves and a partner (who would never know their identity), their generosity correlated inversely to their socioeconomic status.

While it is tempting to conclude from this that greedy people become wealthy, an equally plausible interpretation is that wealth makes people greedy. Why would this be? In a context of abundance greed is silly; only in a context of scarcity is it rational. The wealthy perceive scarcity where there is none. They also worry more than anybody else about money. Could it be that money itself causes the perception of scarcity? Could it be that money, nearly synonymous with security, ironically brings the opposite? The answer to both these questions is yes. On the individual level, rich people have a lot more “invested” in their money and are less able to let go of it. (To let go easily reflects an attitude of abundance.) On the systemic level, as we shall see, scarcity is also built in to money, a direct result of the way it is created and circulated.

The assumption of scarcity is one of the two central axioms of economics. (The second is that people naturally seek to maximize their rational self-interest.) Both are false; or, more precisely, they are true only within a narrow realm, a realm that we, the frog at the bottom of the well, mistake for the whole of reality. As is so often the case, what we take to be objective truth is actually a projection of our own condition onto the “objective” world. So immersed in scarcity are we that we take it to be the nature of reality. But in fact, we live in a world of abundance. The omnipresent scarcity we experience is an artifact: of our money system, of our politics, and of our perceptions.

----
Obviously there's a lot before and after this that will answer most doubts that may come up. I recommend you read the book. http://www.sacred-economics.com

Unexamined assumptions behind UID

I feel that there are some unexamined assumptions behind the whole citizen ID card thing.

One is that the top decision makers in government and the govt machinery are foolproof, infallible people who will never betray their citizens for their personal advantage.

Another is that the way to solve the problems of the day is by having maximum control over everything... by id'ing, tracking everything and everyone, and that we all need a perfect someone on top to keep a close watch over everything.

And yet another assumption is that the problems facing society originate from the population at large and particularly from those at the bottom of the societal/financial pyramid; and not from the elites and rulers at the top of the pyramid. We feel that all the poverty, hunger, deaths, child malnutrition, separation, pollution, disempowerment, discrimination, negativity etc is because of those sneaky people running away from unforgiving debt or fleeing persecution because of sexual orientation or life partner choices or being evicted out of their ancestral lands.... we think these people on the fringes of our society have no right to be burdening our infrastructure and clogging our welfare services. So they're the problem and they should all be tracked, ID'd, denied any basic human dignity because they can't prove that they're one of us, criminalized for not being "proper", and stamped out.


And then again... we make the assumption that finally we'll be able to devise a heavy, sophisticated system that will be able to ensure that despite having unlimited funds, extensive mafia links and questionable ties with the ruling elites of our society who are running this system, no "terrorist" can manage to fake his way through.

Nelson Mandela quotes that you won't find in mainstream media

From http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/06-0

1. "A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy. The press must be free from state interference. It must have the economic strength to stand up to the blandishments of government officials. It must have sufficient independence from vested interests to be bold and inquiring without fear or favor. It must enjoy the protection of the constitution, so that it can protect our rights as citizens."
    
2. "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings."
    
3. "The current world financial crisis also starkly reminds us that many of the concepts that guided our sense of how the world and its affairs are best ordered, have suddenly been shown to be wanting.”
    
4. "Gandhi rejects the Adam Smith notion of human nature as motivated by self-interest and brute needs and returns us to our spiritual dimension with its impulses for nonviolence, justice and equality. He exposes the fallacy of the claim that everyone can be rich and successful provided they work hard. He points to the millions who work themselves to the bone and still remain hungry."
    
5. "There is no doubt that the United States now feels that they are the only superpower in the world and they can do what they like."
    
6. “It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”
    
7. “Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. Sometimes it falls on a generation to be great. YOU can be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom.”
    
8. “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
    
9. “No single person can liberate a country. You can only liberate a country if you act as a collective.”
    
10. "If the United States of America or Britain is having elections, they don't ask for observers from Africa or from Asia. But when we have elections, they want observers."
     
11. “When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.”
     
12. On Gandhi: "From his understanding of wealth and poverty came his understanding of labor and capital, which led him to the solution of trusteeship based on the belief that there is no private ownership of capital; it is given in trust for redistribution and equalization. Similarly, while recognizing differential aptitudes and talents, he holds that these are gifts from God to be used for the collective good."

The decline of empathy

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/07/25/our-disembodied-selves-and-the-decline-of-empathy/

Haven't you noticed it too, in your college or workplace? If empathy is indeed what makes civilization, then clearly we're on the path of destroying it right now.

Disrespecting the counterarguments

Shared this a few days ago.
Thought for the day : to achieve anything of significance in life, it is necessary to give some degree of disrespect to the counterarguments.

Expanding further:
If you live in a culture of constant criticism, cynicism and nay-saying, appropriate countermeasures are needed to be able to move forward. Why do we see many problems around? Because so many people have been convinced that they can't do anything about them thanks to the armies of credible, experienced and perfectly respectable people certifying with unbeatable logic and foolproof arguments how this is not possible, that can't be done...

Why do we see good things around? Because every now and then someone comes along with the nerve to disrespect all those people.

Opinion-o-phobia

You have to have the guts to form an opinion, to express it, to hold it, and to change it whenever you deem necessary.

The problem with conventional structures is that you fear you will be looked down upon if you change your opinions.

Because of the fear of being looked down upon, we find people taking the safer option of not really holding any opinion on issues that may involve a bit of uncertainty. This attitude then gets labeled as more "objective" or "professional" or "unbiased". We conveniently forget that we have to actually take decisions one way or the other and that the decision can only be made if any opinion is formed at all.

We live in a multiplayer world

We do not live in a world where there is just one bad guy / organisation / collective / country.

We do not live in a world where there is just one good guy / organisation / collective / country.

We live in a multiplayer world, where all the players are interacting with each other in multiple ways.
We can have good people fighting with bad people.
We can have good people in conflict with other good people over some differences.
And we can have bad people conflicting with other bad people as well.

Even in the collaborating side, we can have multiple parties - good and bad, good and good, bad and bad - working together.

It's simple to state, but very difficult to actually implement that in our perceptions when we come across any discussions on politics, world affairs these days.

On one such group in FB, I recently found a string of posts in praise for Adolph Hitler and advocating that all we apparently know about him is a conspiracy by the imperialist powers - that he was actually a really great leader and seriously cared for his people and wanted to liberate the world from these imperialist powers.
Seen similar arguments at various different places, extolling the virtues, the moral uprightness, the righteousness of Saddam Hussein, the Iranian government, for Gaddafi, for Milosevic, for Mugabe, for Assad... a lot of guys.
Now, I do not want to pass any judgements on the case itself (for now). However, I want to raise some questions on the intentions behind these posts.

By what logic does everyone who has ever crossed swords with the bad guy, automatically become a good guy?

Shikshantar books

Amazing books here!

Maa Baap ka Ehsaan

Warning: If this article seems offensive, please be assured that it only means that it is having the intended effect on the people it intended to have an effect on.


We come across a lot of stories and advice on the immeasurable, un-repayable debt we owe to our parents.
A favorite is the story of the giving tree. The brat comes along and takes the fruits, branches and finally chops the whole trunk off and the whole time our dear tree is supposedly just happily giving of itself for the sake of the brat. The author of that bogus tear-jerker ought to get sued for taking undue advantage of the fact that trees can't talk. Just because they can't talk, it's suddenly o.k. to imagine that they're oh-so-giving-and-sacrificial. My Ass.
Anyways, this story then gets magically metamorphosed into telling us that our parents are just like the tree. (actually, wouldn't it be so awesome if they couldn't yell or move around...). Forget about the lessons in sustainability that they didn't teach their kid. (Like, plant 10 more trees for every one you chop, you blathering idiot)

I'd like to punch a few holes into this "we-are-indebted" philosophy.
Now, it would seem rude to directly point fingers at my parents and state that they haven't done any ehsaan (aka favors) on me. So let me take it a generation forward.
Suppose that I have a baby and I am raising it as its parent.
During the whole time that I'm caring for her, feeding her, loving her, nurturing her... for even one single second am I going to think that I am doing some major Ehsaan on the baby?
Suppose that she's adopted.
Even then, should I be thinking for even one second that I'm doing the baby an enormous, unpayable, immeasurable favor?

Poem: Thoughts from a secular humanist

Re-posting this image and a transcript of the poem in it.

Thoughts from a secular humanist

I have no invisible authority
I am not mentally enslaved,
I am not an unworthy sinner
Who is waiting to be saved.
My actions are my own
Responsibility for which I take,
Credit for the good and penalty for the bad
The payment for my deeds only I can make.

I'm not the innocent, confused child
'Humble' messengers try to find,
I'm a skeptic with adult reasoning
Who has left Faith behind.
The answers gifted by logic and reason
Are far more appealing to me,
I keep searching for the still unknown
No fitting baseless assumptions dishonestly.

Morality for me is not dreived from an ancient book
With tiring tales of brutality and occasional verses of love,
To be good and to care for my fellow beings
I don't need promises of gifts from above.
The knowledge and wisdom accumulated by science
Sincere and provable, without disguise,
Is what I find more comforting and reality revealing
Than ones given by power-hungry cults fighting over lies.

I'm not someone who thinks women
Compared to their men, are any less,
When her right to say 'No' is violated
I don't blame it on her dress.
Her body is her own, her character not just her face
Rather than a world of fear and suppression,
They deserve a better place.

Things that others do without harming anyone or you
Are reason enough to make some disgusted or depressed
But when I come to know he loves another 'he',
I find myself hardly distressed.
It is better to judge people based on their actions
Not for 'what' they are,
Whether your genes played well or decided to change the rules
All of us are equal humans, who've managed to come this far.

I don't believe that the Universe was 'designed'
With a specific purpose, keeping and of us in mind,
A creator-free Universe is not uninteresting or colourless
But a lot more spectacular with added wonders to find.
Meaning is what we derive from the things that we strive
To achieve during our brief stay on this dot,
Knowing that none is bestowed with any special privileges
How many less battles would have been fought.

My love for this world and concern for its inhabitants
Is not restricted by any boundary line,
Whether you're from the West and I'm from the East
We're still on the same beautiful planet
So ought we not to get along fine?

I respect your right to believe what you want
I respect your right to choose,
But at times when what you believe and choose has a bearing on me
Don't expect me to keep shut or not refuse.
As you read these words, if you find yourself offended
And feel that you need to complain,
I hope you'll first pause for a second and try not to forget
How not being allowed to say it had once led our species
Into the Dark Ages of suffering and pain.


Disclaimer: I didn't write this, but I love it! If you know the author, please connect us!

friendship Vs love in a venn diagram

Hoping that one day we can understand one another.

Why don't we heed the advice of the smartest man in the world?

Fact : Einstein may have sent the letter that started the atom bomb project, but he was strictly against its use as anything but a deterrent to Nazis, and he had the vision to see the full long term consequences of using it on civilians, which is why the US Govt never allowed him to be involved in the Manhattan Project.

He did all he could to stop them - his letter begging the US not to use it on Japanese citizens lay unopened on the prez's desk the day Hiroshima was bombed. One message not reached in time brought so much suffering. People who say "Hey, that was the only way to end the war" -- are too unimaginative. There are always more creative ways to achieve a goal. Einstein was advocating that if they really wanted to demonstrate the a-bomb, they should do it over the sea, too far to harm but sufficient enough to scare. Anyways, seeing that ultimately 2 cities were destroyed, that too the second one happened without even giving the Japanese sufficient time to decide, it's obvious the Americans didn't exactly have the greater good in mind. Self-restraint is the mark of a civilized nation, not bullying.

The smartest man on the planet spent the later part of his life continuously opposing the nuclear arms race and making bold and controversial appeals for peace, including ratifying most of Gandhi's philosophies.

In hindsight, what makes you think we should not heed the advice of one the greatest minds to have done so much to make humanity leap-frog its progress?

What makes you think, whenever you say "ok" to anyone who advocates war or conflict or "extreme measures" against any "enemy", that the warmonger is smarter than Einstein?

If he/she is not, what stops you from throwing the warmonger's advice out of the window?