Salma's comments (member since Jan 02, 2008)

Salma's comments from the Banned Books group.

cool- you're like the teacher in Donnie Darko!:-)

nothing- she was saying that was one of the approved books.

"Salma - Oh, you know, like Anne of Green Gables and stuff like that."

i LOVE Anne. That's one of my favorite series! I actually re-watch the movie made with Megan Follows every year.

Y'know- it seems from the reading list that any work with heart, soul, intensity and just plain and uninhibited passion is 'banned' material. I only hope in that case that I can write a book that will be banned someday. :-p

Debbie, just curious, what ARE some books that are considered appropriate reading in your school?

Maybe I should give a A Separate Peace another try. I can't believe I'm admitting this on an intellectual forum, but the real reason I think I didn't like it is because the main characters are all male, and I read it when I was in my I-hate-boys phase. Yeah.

It's funny- a lot of the banned books I see here were on my reading lists at school growing up...then again I did grow up in Queens and Jersey.

BTW- why does A Separate Peace have 'banned' qualities? I read that in eight grade and was bored outta my mind.

"Transcendental Mediation uses it when they stand for political office as the Natural Law Party – proposing to cut unemployment and the crime rate through meditation as a means to rebalance the natural law of the universe."

Um, this view is completely ridiculous. Obviously I would never support something like this. My theory (I shouldn't say 'my' since I wasn't the one who came up with it) has absolutely nothing to do with what you've just written.

I do have to add that Hinduism is often seen as a philosophy rather than a religion (though it definitely is the latter as well).

It's interesting to read about- I would recommend it...but not to anyone who thinks learning about religions is a 'waste of life' of course.

"Hinduism is interesting in that it's Gods also represent various purified essences, like Kali and destruction/rebirth. It seems that even if one didn't believe in the big many armed lady, one could still meditate on this concept, and basically could still be said to be 'praying to Kali', or meditating to her anyway..."

Yeah, you're not too far off the mark. Some people do consider Hinduism polytheistic, but actually the various goddesses and gods are forms of one larger essence, Brahma. THe Westerners view Kali as a dark, even evil figure (like that ridiculousness in Indiana Jones- Temple/Doom), and she does represent destruxn, along with her consort Shiva (the god of destruction itself). But it's the destruction of negative energies that they really represent, or the need to destroy old inner selves before new ones can be born. Also as a representation of destruction as part of a life cycle.
The life cycle being, creation, preservation, and destruction, represented by the deities, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. This cycle is partly what was behind my light and dark statement a while ago, which people vehemently opposed.

I just came across another book by Dawkins today called the Portable Atheist. Wow, this guy's really set on converting everyone to atheism. Sounds like a fundamentalist to me. :-D

"If these bloodthirsty Sri Lankans aren't buddhists, what are they then?"

Just sick, violent people. I don't believe there are any words of violence in Buddhist texts (there seem to be in other religions though, or at least, fables that involve a lot of violence)- so I think anyone who would twist the text to promote violence, even though I can't see it, is just a twisted individual who's just tainting the religion's name.

And my answer to the Christian fundamentalist issue is the same- sick people. Not real Christians.

"And it all gets so personal because people often have deep personal vulnerabilities invested in their choice of belief, on either side. The ego is certainly involved, and that's usually not helpful for listening."

Great argument (I liked your whole bit, but this part really sticks out). That's why I feel that these discussions are useless- interesting, sometimes annoying, but useless just the same. I mean, think about it- if you have an atheist and a spiritual person at a party and they start talking about this, do you think by the end, the atheist is going to leave thinking, "well, I'll be damned, she's right, there IS a god." Similarly, is the spiritual/religious person going to leave thinking "Damn, what the hell was I thinking believing in a god all these years? That atheist converted me! (ha ha)

"Just for to fill the position of Devil's Advocate, (or lack thereof,) the ethnic Sri Lankans, who are slaughtering Hindu ethnic Tamilians in one of the longest and bloodiest civil wars on the planet right now, are Buddhist."

Well- they're not real Buddhists, obviously. In fact, sounds like they don't even know what Dhammapada is.

"I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it is not so much science that makes these horrible things possible, but how we choose to use science that makes them possible."

The same can be said for religion.

I found this quote by Einstein that I thought would be interesting to share:

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

"I think it's important, talking about this stuff, to maintain a difference between spirituality (independent type religious-ish beliefs), and obedience to a religious hierarchy and community structure."

Exactly! That's the point I should have made in one of my posts earlier, and didn't. For me personally, a lot of atheists have met have been bitter about religion because they were made to sit on hard pews in church as a kid, or that they were told that they were sinners, sex is bad, etc. There is a HUGE difference between religion and spirituality- the former subscrbing to a fixed set of tenets blindly (or if not blindly, then without question), and the latter-which is more of a feeling and connection to a higher force. That said, you can't explain why you're spiritual to an atheist because a lot of atheists believe that rational thought and intellect are above new-agey "fluff" like "feelings" and "intuition" and "mystery."

Of course, I'm not saying that a religious person will necessarily be the blind, unquestioning individual I mentioned- it's just a possibility (albeit a higher one).

I also think that when people talk of religion, they talk of the Judeo-Christian tradition which has a set of beliefs very different from Buddhism, Hinduism, and Old World pagan religions. Therefore, when they make blanket statements regarding 'those religious people' they are often doing so without full knowledge of all the different types of religions and beliefs of these others.

that's true- I'd forgotten that part.

I wonder if those Wisconsin parents would object to Catcher in the Rye- you know, since Holden brings a hooker in his room and everything. And curses so goddamn much.

"Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone that atheism is the way to go. I just hope to convince folks that those of us that do go that way aren't missing anything in terms of morality, humanity, or ability to understand the universe--we've just got a different approach. That religion isn't a human necessity, it's a human choice, though certainly one with some strong evolutionary background on its side."

I really love how you worded this, Lisa. So many atheists just make dismissive and arrogant remarks to people who consider themselves spiritual- it's refreshing to see someone who's actually argued her point.

Nated- love your post. You've said everything much better than I could've.