Desi In Toronto

November 14, 2008

“Secular” India

I guess at times I am enthralled by the fact that India is truly a secular and a minorities championing country. The Prime Minister is from a minority religion, a woman is the president and an Italian born Indian citizen runs (allegedly) the party in power. I mean, where else can you find such welcoming people?

But then there is bullshit like this :

Taslima Nasreen forced to leave India again

So here is an authour who has done no wrong to anyone except write poetry and about the women in Islam. For that she :

has again been “forced” to leave India after her brief stay here, prompting the controversial writer to question the country’s alleged secular credentials.

The writer, who returned to India on August 8, said she had to leave on October 15 following the government’s dictum.

“Yes, I was forced to leave India once again… The government gave me resident permit for 6 months with a secret condition that I must leave the country in a few days,” she told PTI in an e-mail interview.

“Gave a 6 month visa with the condition that she leave immediately”???? WHAT?? So the all powerful, all secular government of India bowed and cowered to a segment of the population that has better things to revile in the country like poverty, corruption etc. but instead focuses it’s energy on an authour!!?!!

I know it’s all politics but there comes a time when a government needs to stand up for a principle. This author had to flee her birth country because of the fatwa placed on her. This was the perfect opportunity for the government of India and the state government (which is, ironically, a communist party i.e. an anti religion party) to demonstrate their secular credentials.

And why would anyone want to object violently to what a person has written? This is what really irks me about Indians. They take little silly issues like a book and make a huge deal out of it. Why?

November 12, 2008

The Anti Immigration Squad

Filed under: Religious Nonsence, Something That Irks Me — agsharma @ 8:56 am

<Link>

A mosque asking that Canadian workplaces respect a strict Muslim dress code is at the same time disseminating slurs against Jews and Western societies, and warning members against social integration.

Why? Why should a work place respect a dress code that has been deemed dangerous? Sometimes I just don’t get religion. We are living in a modern society with a modern law that clearly stipulates the health of the employee to be of paramount value. And if the way the employee behaves or chooses to dress which is contrary to what is expected of the employee, then please find other work.

In September, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal heard two weeks of testimony from eight mosque members alleging “Islamophobia” at the company’s west Toronto plant. Three final days of testimony are scheduled for next week.

The eight women, who lost their jobs at UPS, say Islam dictates that they wear a full-length skirt for modesty. The courier company insists that any skirt be knee-length for safety, as workers climb ladders up to 6 metres high.

Under their skirt, the women wear full-length trousers but say they do not want the lower part showing in case the shape of the calf can be discerned.

The complaint originally centred on the company’s use of temporary workers and uneven enforcement of its safety rules.

But the key question remains: Is UPS insisting on shorter hems for safety or is it violating religious rights by denying the women permanent jobs unless they conform?

I ASSUME that the dress code was told to the women on the day they were hired. If the women accepted it at that point then I am sorry, they need to be shown the door.

If the company told the women after a few weeks/months/years of employment that part of their job is to dress in a certain way, then the company is at fault. It’s as clear as that.

If the company is enforcing it’s safety rules in a discriminatory way then, they should definitely be investigated. But I kind of find it hard to believe that UPS, a global brand name company, would risk a PR problem by picking on women because of their religion.

The article continues with this :

The Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque near Kipling Ave. and Rexdale Blvd. serves as the religious authority for eight Somali women complaining to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that UPS Canada Ltd. violated their religious rights at a sorting plant. The mosque, founded in 1990 and serving upwards of 10,000 people, preaches strict adherence to sharia, or Islamic law, and no compromise with the West.

Teachings on the mosque’s website, khalidmosque.com, refer to non-Muslim Westerners as “wicked,” “corrupt” and “our clear enemies.”

Sometimes Jews are singled out.

“Is it permissible for women to wear high-heeled shoes?” begins one posting in question-and-answer format. “That is not permissible,” comes the reply. “It involves resembling the Disbelieving Women or the wicked women. It has its origin among the Jewish women.”

Modern pastimes are condemned.

“What is the ruling on subscribing to sports channels?” another question begins. “Watching some of the female spectators, when the camera focuses on them time after time” stirs “evil inclinations,” the lesson reads. “Some (players) may not even believe in Allaah.”

Mosque leaders refused repeated requests for an interview.

A disclaimer on the website says questions and answers do not necessarily reflect the mosque’s views. But the About Us page says: “All questions and answers on this site (are) prepared, approved and supervised by (the mosque’s imam) Bashir Yusuf Shiil.”

And some people have the nerve to ask, why be an atheist?

This is clearly religious indocternation right under our noses here in Canada. I am miffed by the fact that why is it even allowed? Were this a Church web-site would the authorities have allowed the church to continue spewing hatred? Why is this mosque being given a pass? It will be interesting to see how the authorities handle this situation because it will be very telling on the status of political correctedness in Canada.

And here is the other side :

ABIDE BY OUR RULES OR LEAVE OUR COUNTRY

I’m sick and tired of immigrants coming to our country to then make demands upon us and dictate how we should regulate matters. Safety must come first and UPS is absolutely right to insist that long skirts not be worn in the warehouses due to the safety implications. The audacity to think that they have a right to tell us how we should “run our show”. I say clearly and loudly, out with the entire lot of them. Either come to our country and accept our culture, rules and regulations or go back to where you came from where “the long skirt rules”. Too many Canadians are too “politically correct” and afraid to speak out for fear of being labelled a racist. In the meantime, these immigrants have no reservations about speaking out against our culture. Who truly is the racist in this scenario ? No more polite cow-towing to their endless demands. Abide by “our” rules or leave.

What I find amusing is how the anti-immigrant squad comes out fighting each time such an issue is in the news. “If you don’t like our rules, leave”.

I’d like to ask Marilyn, is that what your ancestors were told by the natives when they arrived in Canada? It is so easy for you to dictate terms to us immigrants when you are kind of foggy about your status in this country. YOU ARE ALSO AN IMMIGRANT. You are what we would call a 2nd or 3rd generation immigrant. Even if your ancestors arrived in Canada 400 years ago, you still have your roots in some European country. So please stop with this “immigrants are evil” bullshit.

And I am sick and tired of hearing “our culture, our values”. What exactly are they? I would love for someone to identify “Canadian culture” for me.

I strongly oppose any form of religious indoctrination (am an atheist) in Canada and this mosque should be investigated and if necessary, closed. But to start blanketing every immigrant as “they have come to destroy us” is sheer paranoia.

November 3, 2008

Video Of The Day

Filed under: Religious Nonsence, The Real India — agsharma @ 2:57 pm

October 15, 2008

Video Of The Day

Filed under: Religious Nonsence — agsharma @ 11:31 am

Passionate essay……

September 24, 2008

Only In India

Filed under: Religious Nonsence, Society, The Real India — agsharma @ 10:47 am

Lynching is alive and kicking in India

A day after the tragic death of Graziano Trasmissioni Chief Executive Officer LK Chaudhary inside the factory and at the hand of his own employees, 136 sacked employees have been arrested.

The incident has stunned the corporate world and raised a disturbing question: could the tragedy have been averted if the police had reached on time?

Chaudhary, say his friends, was a mild mannered man. The 48-year-old CEO of Graziano Trasmissioni led a 1000-strong work force. The violence on Monday inside the plant not only claimed Chaudhury’s life, it also sent 26 of his employees to the hospital including 10 who are in the ICU.

Mob mentality is a really dangerous thing especially so in India where passions can be raised quickly. And boneheaded statements from politicians like this really do not help.

Describing the killing of L.K. Chaudhury, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an Italy-based company Graziano Transmissioni in Greater Noida as a fallout of the “simmering discontent among the workers,” the government on Tuesday said, this should serve as a warning for managements.

“It is my appeal to the managements that the workers should be dealt with compassion,” Minister of Labour and Employment (Independent charge) Oscar Fernendes told journalists here.

There are disparities in the wages of permanent employees, contract and temporary workers. The workers should not be pushed so hard that they resort to whatever that had happened in Greater Noida, he said.

Only an uneducated fool or a pandering politician could say something so monumentally stupid. Never mind that the company carried out a legit action by firing workers it does not need. I am sure that workers must have been peeved, after all they are the ones who lost their lively hood, but does that really justify beating and killing the management?

This is one aspect I really hate about us Indians. We get inflammed, incensed very easily with deadly consequences. Am wrong in picking on Indians? Probably. But history says something else. 

1, 2, 3, 4.

September 18, 2008

Moronic News Of The Day

Filed under: Religious Nonsence — agsharma @ 8:38 am

Read and weep.

Doctors’ body backs down on religion policy

The regulating body for Ontario physicians has backed off a controversial proposal that would have forced doctors to put aside their religious views when dealing with patients.

Protests from the Ontario Medical Association and numerous religious groups appear to have tempered the thinking of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

For example, it could have applied to doctors who not only refuse to prescribe birth control pills, or do fertility treatments for same-sex couples, but also to those who refuse to offer referrals to doctors who do those things.

“Referring is just a way of sloughing off your responsibility,” Rabbi Reuven Bulka of Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottawa, said last week. “If you’re opposed to these things, referring is the same as taking part in the evil.”

The new policy, which is scheduled to be voted on today, now serves as more of a warning about what doctors may face from the Human Rights Commission.

And, of course, because this was from National Post, there was no comment from anyone to the effect that the rights of the common man are trodden on when a doctor follows his/her “religious” belief.

If you think your god is going to punish you for saving a life or helping the needy then you really need to rethink this belief thingy of yours.

September 17, 2008

Dilbert - The New Devil

Filed under: Intelligent Design, Religious Nonsence, Something That Irks Me — agsharma @ 11:44 am

Well, I refer to not Dilbert, perse, But the creator of Dilbert, Scott Adams. Here is his latest post on cnn.

This summer I found myself wishing someone would give voters useful and unbiased information about which candidate has the best plans for the economy.

Then I realized that I am someone, which is both inconvenient and expensive. So for once I asked not what my country could do for me.

At considerable personal expense, I commissioned a survey of over 500 economists, drawn from a subset of the members of the American Economic Association, a nonpolitical group, some of whose members had agreed in advance to be surveyed on economic questions.

The results do not represent the economic association’s position. The survey was managed by The OSR Group, a respected national public opinion and marketing research company.

I should pause here and confess my personal biases, since the messenger is part of the story. On social issues, I lean Libertarian, minus the crazy stuff.

Moneywise, I can’t support a candidate who promises to tax the bejeezus out of my bracket, give the windfall to a bunch of clowns with a 14 percent approval rating (Congress), and hope they spend it wisely.

Unfortunately, the alternative to the guy who promises to pillage my wallet is a lukewarm cadaver. I’m in trouble either way.

I just hope whoever gets elected notices that the economists in my survey don’t think that raising my taxes is a priority

I was a big fan of Dilbert in the heydays of The Dilbert Principle but the strip fell out of my favour when I noticed :


a) the strip was becoming heavily commercialised

b) the jokes were repeating themselves

c) Scott Adams is a believer of Intelligent Design

After going through his blogs (here and here), I cannot find his post where he claimed that ID asks “pertinent” questions. Only a completely moronic person could make such a claim. Anyway, here’s PZ Meyers breaking down Adams’ argument the way he does best.

and now I can add

d) Scott Adams, the multi-millionaire is whinning about how he is going to be taxed by Obama (true) and by McCain (not true).

I just don’t understand how someone could be earning millions upon millions of dollars and moaning about having to pay a little more in tax. This is not the thinking of a confident, self made man. This is the thinking of a ego-maniac.

What a tool.

July 29, 2008

This Is So Funny And So True!!!!

Filed under: Religious Nonsence, Society, Something I Found Funny — agsharma @ 9:13 pm

June 29, 2008

The Right To Die According To Margaret Somerville

Filed under: Conservaties, Religious Nonsence, Society — agsharma @ 9:19 am

Margaret Somerville has put up an article arguing against euthanasia. She has desperately tried to hide her religious reasons against euthansia but she failed to do so miserably.

She hit the nail on the head when describing euthanasia in modern society.

When personal and societal values were consistent, widely shared and based on shared religion, the case against euthanasia was simple: God commanded “Thou shalt not kill.”

In a secular society based on intense individualism, the case for euthanasia is simple: Individuals have the right to choose the manner, time and place of their death.

In contrast, in such societies the case against euthanasia is complex. It requires arguing that harm to the community trumps individual rights or preferences.

Precisely. When religion ruled the roost, assisted suicide was a big NO but as religion belief was questioned, so were all the issues like abortion and right for women to vote bought out into the limelight and were dealt with. These issues were studied by the modern society and the inescapable conclusion to these issues was : Individual’s rights cannot be infringed. It was a woman’s right to get an abortion. It was a woman’s and a black man’s right to vote. Laws were passed to make sure that the society as a whole understood these rights, as was pointed to her by one of her students.

One student explained that she thought I was giving far too much weight to concerns about how legalizing euthanasia would harm the community and our shared values, especially that of respect for life, and too little to individuals’ rights to autonomy and self-determination, and to euthanasia as a way to relieve people’s suffering.

She emphasized that individuals’ rights have been given priority in contemporary society, and they should also prevail in relation to death. Moreover, legalizing euthanasia was consistent with other changes in society, such as respect for women and access to abortion, she said.

Wow. A student topping her professor. That does not happen often. So what was Margaret`s response?

To respond to such arguments, we need to be able to embed euthanasia in a moral context without resorting to religion — that is, formulate a response that adequately communicates the case against euthanasia from a secular perspective.

That requires, first, countering the belief that individual rights should always prevail — a task I failed at in class.

Exactly. And you have already told us why it is impossible to counter the belief that “individual rights should always prevail”. Because one of the pillars supporting today’s society is INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

The right to free speech (even hate speech), the right to have a baby out of marriage, the right to marry a person of any colour and the right to die when you decide it is time. These are all individual decisions and the society as a whole cannot and must not dictate how a person is supposed to live “morally”.

Nothing……absolutely nothing trumps a person’s rights unless his/her actions harms others. Margaret is obviously an educated person so I don’t understand why she does not comprehend this simple fact. This is the reason why she was not able to convince her class that a person is well within his/her rights to decide when it’s time to die. We may question the person’s decision but we must not be allowed to put our moral beliefs ahead of a person’s wishes.

From this point on, she just rambles and does not give any hard facts. She gives her thoughts on the matter and leaves it at that. Here is her closing arguement which illustrates how seeped her arguments are, in religion.

But one of my students responded, “If anything, I think many of our reactions come not from an overexposure to death, but from an aversion to suffering, and an unwillingness or hesitancy to prolong pain.”

Finding convincing responses to the relief-of-suffering argument used to justify euthanasia is difficult in secular societies. In the past, we used religion to give value and meaning to suffering. But, now, suffering is often seen as the greatest evil and of no value, which leads to euthanasia being seen as an appropriate response.

Some answers to the “suffering argument” might include that:

- even apart from religious belief, it’s wrong to kill another human;

- euthanasia would necessarily cause loss of respect for human life;

- it would open up an inevitable slippery slope and set a precedent that would present serious dangers to future generations. Just as our actions could destroy their physical environment, likewise, we could destroy their moral environment. Both environments must be held on trust for them;

- recognizing death as an acceptable way to relieve suffering could influence people contemplating suicide.

As you can see, absolute rubbish. So suffering is preferable to death. Is this not one of the key moral lessons in Christianity?

“Serious dangers to future generations”? How exactly? Margaret never elaborates. And the last para…..

Might the strongest argument against euthanasia, however, relate not to death but to life? That is, the argument that normalizing it would destroy a sense of the unfathomable mystery of life and seriously damage our human spirit, especially our capacity to find meaning in life.

Huh? What the hell does that mean? A person is suffering and wants to die but you want to keep that person alive so that he/she can “explore the unfathomable mystery of life”? People like Margaret Somerville like to moralise the “beauty of life” as long as they are not the ones who are suffering.

Via CathiefromCanada.com

June 15, 2008

Bobby Jindal

Filed under: Conservaties, Intelligent Design, Religious Nonsence, Society — agsharma @ 4:49 pm

I know the immigrant community in Louisiana (and elsewhere) must be really excited about Bobby Jindal as a prospective VP nomination for US. It must be so exciting to see a bonafied second generation immigrant coming so close to power and who knows, maybe even THE power one day.

But when someone says something incredibly stupid and dumb like this, how can that person be even considered for a post as powerful as the VP? It’s a simple question and all his supporters, especially among the immigrant supporters, need to answer this CAAAAAAREFULLY.

June 1, 2008

India’s Religious In-tolerance

Filed under: Religious Nonsence, Society — agsharma @ 10:44 am

<Link>

NEW DELHI: Lauding India for its secular values, Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama on Sunday said the country’s “religious tolerance” can be a “role model” for the rest of the world.

“India’s long tradition of religions tolerance can be a role model for rest of the world,” he said here while speaking at an international Anti-Terrorism Conference which was attended by leaders from several countries.

“Major religions of the world like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated in India and it provided shelter to followers of religions like Zoroastrianism. These can be a model for rest of the world,” he said.

Referring to Pakistan and Iraq, where Shia-Sunni strife has claimed hundreds of lives, he said it is India where people of all religions and sects live peacefully.

Condemning terrorism across the world, he said: “some people’s actions raise finger to all others. This is wrong… We have to consider human values and think about humanity as a whole. It is a universal responsibility.”

Oh dear god!! I really admire the Dalai Lama so it makes the statement even more ridiculous. I mean, come on……learn from India’s religious tolerance? Please.

  • The National Liberation Front of Tripura, an organization (presently almost disbanded), regarded as a Christian/Nationalist terrorist group operating in Northeastern India, have committed mass-murders on the Hindu population of the region.
  • The Ghanchi Muslims of Gujarat have frequently carried out pogroms against Hindus, most notably the Sindhi riots in the 1960s and the Godhra Train Burning in 2002.
  • The murder of Indira Gandhi had triggered a riot against the Sikhs, often regarded as a Congress Party and its then leader Rajiv Gandhi supported pogrom (for details see 1984 Anti-Sikh riots).
  • The BJP government of Gujarat siding against the Muslims during recent riots against Muslims in Gujarat, triggered by the event above and of not assisting in persecution of the guilty (for details see 2002 Gujarat violence).
  • Hindus in Kashmir have frequently been murdered and ethnically cleansed from the region by Islamic extremists.

April 27, 2008

Oh Dear God!!

Filed under: Religious Nonsence, Society, The Real India — agsharma @ 7:53 pm

<Link>

How is it possible for a country that offers this :-

New Delhi - India’s satellite launch vehicle PSLV-C9 is set to launch 10 satellites in one go on Monday, officials said.


The PSLV-C9 is scheduled to put in orbit the Cartosat-2A remote sensing satellite along with an Indian mini-satellite and eight foreign nano satellites, S Satish, spokesman for the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), said.


“The 230-tonne rocket (PSLV-C9) will carry a luggage of 824 kilograms,” he said. Cartosat-2A weighs about 690 kilograms an carries a panchromatic camera that can record high-clarity images covering a swathe of 9.6 kilometres.

…..have people that believe in dumb sh*t like this?

Religious traditions are diverse and sometimes as bizarre as they can get. A village in Solapur, Maharashtra, has a dangerous tradition of throwing newborns from a height of 50 feet onto a sheet, which is held by devotees.

The infants are thrown off the roof of the Baba Sheikh Umar Saheb Dargah in Musti village in Solapur. This is an age-old tradition practiced by couples who are blessed with a child after taking a vow at the dargah. The devotees also believe that this ritual is good for the health of the child.

….and here is the kicker…..

Both Muslim and Hindu families take part in this ritual, however the state administration chooses not to interfere and provides heavy police security during the ritual every year.

So, terrified children are deemed not to need protection but people who throw children from 50 feet do? Sometimes, I am glad I am not raising my daughter in India.

March 24, 2008

Superstitious Freaks Of India

Filed under: Religious Nonsence — agsharma @ 9:20 pm

From Reason magazine :

When a prominent Indian politician said her political opponents had put a black magic spell on her, one of India’s largest Hindu TV stations invited Indian rationalist Sanal Edamaruku to debate black magic shaman Pandit Surinder Sharma on science and religion. That’s where it got interesting:

During the discussion, the tantrik showed a small human shape of wheat flour dough, laid a thread around it like a noose and tightened it. He claimed that he was able to kill any person he wanted within three minutes by using black magic. Sanal challenged him to try and kill him.

The tantrik tried. He chanted his mantras (magic words): “Om lingalingalinalinga, kilikili….” But his efforts did not show any impact on Sanal – not after three minutes, and not after five. The time was extended and extended again. The original discussion program should have ended here, but the “breaking news” of the ongoing great tantra challenge was overrunning all program schedules.

After nearly two hours, the anchor declared the tantrik’s failure. The tantrik, unwilling to admit defeat, tried the excuse that a very strong god whom Sanal might be worshipping obviously protected him. “No, I am an atheist,” said Sanal Edamaruku.

People of Indian origin are the most superstitious people on earth. We believe any stupid and silly thing that is told to us and if it is repeated a number of times, it becomes true. This is the reason why I detested my mother and mother-in-law trying to introduce a superstitious way to handle Rhea’s (my daughter) fear of monsters. The problem is that superstition is so ingrained in the Hindu mind that to flush it out would require more than stunts like the above. This stupid pundit will continue to leach off innocent people who will continue to believe what the pundit says and not what the evidence says.

March 2, 2008

Annoying Co-Workers

Filed under: Religious Nonsence — agsharma @ 8:03 pm

I wonder how I would react if this happens to me?

One of my colleagues is a fervently religious woman who is not content practising her faith on her own time, but instead interrogates her co-workers in their cubicles and preaches to them. On one occasion she followed me on my lunch break to a shoe store and chastised me for “shopping again.”

I don’t think she’s a bad person, but for some reason she seems to feel it’s okay to make her co-workers’ personal habits and lives part of her personal crusade. And she’s not the only one. I would say her behaviour is the norm rather than the exception.

I am not aggressively anti-religious but if someone questions me about religion, I don’t beat about the bush explaining why I think religion is what destroys societies and how whenever i hear someone talk about religion, I just want to go get hammered. This is probably why I have never got a sermon from anyone.

August 6, 2007

God The Utterly Wrong

Filed under: Religious Nonsence — agsharma @ 9:49 pm

I hate the concept of god. It took me a while to get to the truth and am very happy to be where I am at this point.

My problem is how do I get my daughter to, so to speak, see the light. I don’t want her to wait 34 years before she realises that the concept of god is truly and utterly wrong. I want her to grow up with the truth. I want her to know that god is not an entity but a ghost in everyone’s mind. I want her to know that to achieve something in life, one does not need to visit the temple and pray for it but rather to achieve it with her own will and belief in herself.

But I also don’t want to force my belief in her. I’d rather she discover the truth herself. I’d rather she approach me to tell me why she believes there is no god and not the other way around.

Raising kids is really tough!!

Blog at WordPress.com.