Tuesday, October 23, 2007

"But! it's a misinterpretation of the book, how can any religion teach bad things?"

"I am unclear with the word misinterpretation. If it's a book written in a language, the words will never convey a meaning narrow enough not to be interpreted in different ways. Also, if it's supposed to be a code book for life, it better be simple! The last prophet enforces the idea of a perfect book in the form of Koran which cannot be misinterpreted. The Abraehemic texts prior to that as well as code books in other religions such as Manusmriti better be damn clear."

"From now on, in arguments against the crimes perpetrated by god lovers, I am going to use their books against them, in the most literal and obvious interpreation, that's the price they'll pay for following a vague legislature."

11 comments:

Sumedh said...

:)

Anonymous said...

The manusmriti is damn clear. Crystal rather. My grandfather has a copy in his collection. Notwithstanding its stand on untouchables, the kind of things it prescribes for women in society made me feel like puking more than once.

Roger Waters said...

I'd agree, I was hesitating in including that, but I've known people who are able to interpret it in peaceful ways. I hope you are KS :-)

Anonymous said...

Is Manusmriti really a codebook for the Hindu religion?

Roger Waters said...

This is one famous escape route in the argument. AFAIK, there is no particular book which is well-agreed upon in hindu religion (even that term is a misnomer) as a moral codebook (hence the general lack of consensus on moral issues in hindu society). Manusmriti seems to serve the purpose pretty well since it was written specifically as a descriptive moral codebook (as opposed to a generative one).

Anonymous said...

Shit..my comment got deleted..

Wait? Escape route in what argument? I didn't really even understand your post...just asking questions. Infact, my comment was going to continue onto say "Is the Hindu religion really a religion?"

So, if there is a lack of consensus on whether Hinduism is a religion or not and IF it is, whether or not Manusmriti is its codebook, why was it your choice as the codebook in the post?

If your point was to say that religion teaches bad things: If I had to choose, I would agree with you. But my opinion lies somewhere near the middle...

Pritam said...

who said these things?

Roger Waters said...

To pritam: It's a literary technique :P to put things in a dialogs to convey things.

To anon: There is no question that religion teaches bad things ;-) The point here was that people use the term 'misinterpretation' a lot these days, especially with respect to Islam, which I find ironical since the codebook for Islam was supposed to be the most clear and pure message from god which (presumably) cannot be misinterpreted.

Anonymous said...

though there is a lack of consensus on how hinduism operates at the personal level, I dont think there is any doubt as to how it has operated as an institution. The term misinterpretation is used by apologists who though defensive are basically sweet chaps by nature. But the institution cannot find efficiency and power if it follows Advaita or Bhakti texts as a rule book, it has to resort to Manusmriti. As Dawkins says in another context, it is an ESS (Evolutionarily stable strategy) :P

Varun said...

To quote Weinberg, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

Roger Waters said...

Freemon Dyson completed that quote by adding, 'With religion, bad people do good things'. He explains how christianity was meant to be a religion of sinners. He has a point.

I wonder if this applies to hinduism where there is no control of standards over morality.