Lyrics: "Tu Hindu Banega Na Musalman Banega"

तू हिन्दू बनेगा न मुसलमान बनेगा
تو ہندو بنےگا نہ مسلمان بنےگا
You'll become neither Hindu nor Muslim

इंसान की औलाद है इंसान बनेगा
انسان کی اولاد ہے انسان بنےگا
You are the child of a human; you'll become a human
(as opposed to being labeled as Hindu or Muslim)

अच्छा है अभी तक तेरा कुछ नाम नहीं है
اچھا  ہے ابھی تک تیرا کچھ نام نہیں ہے
Good that 'til now you have no name

तुझको किसी मज़हब से कोई काम नहीं है
تجھ کو کسی مذہب سے کوئی کام نہیں ہے
You have no dealing with any religion

जिस इल्म ने इंसानों को तक़सीम किया है
جس علم نے انسانوں کو تقسیم کیا ہے
The knowledge which has divided humans

उस इल्म का  तुझ पर कोई इलज़ाम नहीं है
اس علم کا تجھ پر کوئی الزام نہیں ہے
That knowledge will not burden you
(with accusations)

तू बदले हुए वक़्त की पहचान बनेगा
تو بدلے ہوئے وقت کی پہچان بنےگا
You will be the face of the changing times

इंसान की औलाद है इंसान बनेगा
انسان کی اولاد ہے انسان بنےگا
You are the child of a human; you'll become a human

मालिक ने हर इंसान को इंसान बनाया
مالک نے ہر انسان کو انسان بنایا
God made each a human

हम ने उसे हिन्दू या मुसलमान बनाया
ہم نے اسے ہندو یا مسلمان بنایا
We made each a Hindu or a Muslim

क़ुदरत ने तो बख्शी थी हमें एक ही धरती
قدرت نے تو بخشی تھی ہمیں ایک ہی دھرتی
Nature allocated one earth to us

हम ने कहीं भारत कहीं ईरान बनाया
ہم نے کہیں بھارت کہیں ایران بنایا  
Whereas we have created India and Iran

जो तोड़ दे हर बांध वह तूफ़ान बनेगा
جو توڑ دے ہر باندھ وہ طوفان بنےگا
The one who breaks each lock will become a storm

इंसान की औलाद है इंसान बनेगा
انسان کی اولاد ہے انسان بنےگا
You are the child of a human; you'll become a human

नफ़रत जो सिखाए वह धर्म तेरा नहीं है
نفرت جو سکھاے وہ دھرم تیرا نہیں ہے
The religion that teaches hatred is not yours

इंसान को जो रौंदे वह क़दम तेरा नहीं है
انسان کو جو روندے وہ قدم تیرا نہیں ہے
The step/foot that tramples humanity is not yours

क़ुरआन न हो जिस में वह मंदिर नहीं है तेरा
قرآن نہ ہو جس میں مندر نہیں ہے تیرا
The temple without a Qur'an is not your temple

गीता न हो जिस में वह हरम तेरा नहीं है
گیتا نہ ہو جس میں وہ حرم تیرا نہیں ہے
The mosque without a Gita is not your mosque

तू अमन का और सुलह का अरमान बनेगा
تو امن اور صلح کا ارمان بنےگا
You will become hope for peace and reconciliation

इंसान की औलाद है इंसान बनेगा
انسان کی اولاد ہے انسان بنےگا
You are the child of a human; you'll become a human

ये दीन के ताजर ये वतन बेचने वाले
یے دین کے تاجر یے وطن بیچنے والے
These traders of religion; these who sell the country

इंसानों की लाशों के कफ़न बेचने वाले
انسانوں کی لاشوں کے کفن بیچنے والے
These who sell the shroud off of corpses

ये महलों में बैठे हुए क़ातिल ये लुटेरे
یے مہلوں میں بیٹھے ہوے قاتل یے لٹیرے
These murderers and thieves sitting in palaces

काँटों के एवज रूह ए चमन बेचने वाले
کانٹوں کے ایوز روحِ چمن بیچنے والے
These who sell thorns instead of flowers

तू इन के लिए मौत का ऐलान बनेगा
تو ان کے لئے موت کا اعلان بنےگا
You will become their death knell

इंसान की औलाद है इंसान बनेगा
انسان کی اولاد ہے انسان بنےگا
You are the child of a human; you'll become a human

Lyricist: Sahir Ludhianvi
Transcription & Translation by Nikhil Nandigam

A New Perspective on Atheism

Can we define a word by what it does not represent, rather than by what it does represent? Is it fair that we assume the general public will responsibly fill in the blanks and develop a coherent definition to describe an abstract and broad concept? The answer is a clear no. No astute person can expect the public to come to a unified, clear consensus over what a word means, unless an authority properly defines it. Therefore, I agree with neuroscientist Sam Harris that “no one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist'” (Harris). However, in order to shed light on the discrepancies in usage of the word “atheist,” I will employ the word to describe my own subjective views contrary to the objective connotation of “atheism” found in dictionaries – dictionaries that devolve the word to a hollow concept lacking depth or substance. As much of the world encounters atheism only in the form of a word, not in the form of a living, aspiring fellow human, I hope to exemplify the attributes of atheism not commonly exposed to the public. By examining the word from three different lenses: etymological undertones, personal perspective and impact, and greater social implications, one understands that “atheism” is not a cynical, unhappy “doctrine...that there is no god,” but a flexible belief content with different, but equally fulfilling values and ideals (“Atheism”).

One prime reason for the lack of understanding of atheism in modern society originates from the etymological meaning of the word itself. The roots of the word “atheism” infer a void in the belief, rather than define the true ideals of exploration, experimentation, and individualism inherent in the way most atheists view their surrounding. The word “atheism” originally came to English via the Greek “atheos” meaning “to deny the gods, godless.” And furthermore, “atheos” advances from its roots of “a + theos” – meaning “without a god” (“Atheist”). Regardless of the root, since sixteenth century English, those who do not subscribe to a god have been relegated to believing in nothingness, instead of a set of different, but still valuable beliefs. However, Greek is not the only language to lend itself to the dispossession of the godless through the word. Similarly, modern Indian languages deriving from Sanskrit also strip atheists of a word that substantiated their beliefs. The Sanskrit term “naastik” literally translates to “not believing, not pious” – once again highlighting a void, not a different range of appreciated values (Monier-Williams).

Though the dictionary definitions of atheism are not false, they under no circumstance fully represent the means though which atheists represent themselves, the means through which they find satisfaction, or the means through which they fill the vacuums of nothingness described by the dictionaries – or even that means for such fulfillment exist. And therefore, most people who do not association the word with a person that they know struggle to comprehend the legitimacy or substantiation of the belief itself. Perhaps the lack of success on the part of ancient (and modern) languages to bring forth a descriptive, value-oriented definition of the godless lifestyle involves the degree of subjectivity, flexibility, and personal initiative recognized under the broad umbrella of interpretations of atheism.

The personal nature of atheism is one that encourages free-thought, open-mindedness, curiosity, and individualism. And this might have proven both as a boon and a bane to the manner in which society sees and understands (or does not understand) atheists. Firstly, the flexibility of atheism with no supervising priest, rabbi, imam, or guru allows the non-religious to adopt a personal definition of their beliefs that they structure specifically around their lives and families, their goals and aspirations, their careers and education. Although many who identify themselves as atheists will commit to many basic perspectives, most define a set of values important to them. For example, British geneticist and biologist J.B.S. Haldane's definition of his core beliefs distinguishes him as a scientist:

My practise as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not atheistic in the affairs of the world. And I should be a coward if I did not state my theoretical views in public.

Haldane applies his belief of objectivity, curiosity, and individualism to the scientific process while acknowledging the role that this set of values plays in his everyday activities in the lab. As this excerpt emphasizes, just as people's religious values travel with them and immerse into their numerous other identities – the same sense of commitment to a different set of values occurs in the life of the non-religious.

Consequentially, the ways in which I understand atheism and its correlated values to filter into my life differ greatly from Haldane's. As a college student, I see the prevailing theory of fatalism which is present in all religions as pointless and detracting from life. Praying as I prepare for an exam is non-consequential; my own efforts can pull me through. I also refuse to be intoxicated; if I object to surrendering my fate to a god, how can I surrender my judgment to alcohol and drugs? Through rejecting fatalism, I feel responsible for my own actions and am aware that any goals I set may be achieved through my own will and not that of any god's Providence. When I am successful I commend only myself; when I fail, I censure only myself. As an Indian-American atheist, I have always been a pragmatic person, challenging the various superstitions rooted in the Indian and Hindu cultures. I find reciting Sanskrit incantations for protection, consulting priests for a propitious wedding date, or adorning an amulet for good luck to be an unnecessary attempt to leave the real practicalities of the world behind. Rather than escape these practicalities, I prefer to work with them. In all these ways, I define myself as an individual, an individual with an open mind, personal values, and societal responsibilities.

The ambiguous definition of the atheist found in dictionaries also fails to assess the social implications an atheistic population has on its surroundings. A 2006 study from the University of Minnesota manifests this prejudice against atheists. The study concluded that atheists formed the least trusted demographic in the United States. As sociologist Penny Edgell comments on the results of this study, the “findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.” Likewise, society does not award atheists the same degree of tolerance that atheists have been awarding to other diverse minority groups. Edgell continues to note that the American atheist is “a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years.” (Paulos). Common atheistic values of self-determination, education, political participation, and tolerance not only affect the individual, but also their societies as a whole. Therefore, the definition of atheists as only “godless” commits an injustice to atheists' contributions to society.

Pitzer College sociology professor Phil Zuckerman's analysis of declared atheists and their societies reveals trends that demonstrate against the view of atheists as apathetic, hateful, and depressed individuals alienated from their communities. On the contrary, the fewest murders occur in states with the highest percentage of atheists; only 0.2% of American prisoners are atheists. Societies with high proportions of atheists also benefit from greater tolerance toward homosexual and women's rights groups, as well as low levels of racial prejudice, and high levels of education (Cohen). Zuckerman also suggests that Sweden – arguable the most atheistic country in the world – donates the greatest percentage of its GDP to charity (Zuckerman). All these instances promote examples of greater cooperation, progressivism, and collectivism in societies rather than alienation, anger, and disillusionment stereotypically characterizing a secular, or clearly non-religious population.

These statistics also deny the common misconception that religion is equivalent to morality and that morality is equivalent to religion. This is not the case. One can indeed exist and prosper without the other. But how can we reverse this trend of outcasting atheists to the fringes while atheists themselves are attempting to integrate their societies? The definition and usage of the word “atheist” does not relay to the average man or woman a concrete description of what the godless incorporate into their lifestyle, ethics, or morals. And this ignorance keeps society and atheists distances my misunderstandings, misconceptions, and miscommunication.

To separate themselves from the range of ambiguity and implicit nature of the word “atheism,” many who do not identify themselves with any religion have chosen a new range of terms to explicitly identify their ideals and values. Terms such as “freethinking,” “humanism,” and “universalism” are all terms under the umbrella of “atheism” which which further substantiate a set of beliefs. For example, as a secular humanist, I believe that my personal decisions, choices, and ethics determine their specific consequences. I believe that power to accomplish is left to humans – and we must proactively make our goals as reality. Humanism advocates activism, not passive hope or faith.

But why a range of identities under an umbrella that believes in nothingness? Because that is a misconception propagated by the word “atheist,” that we believe in nothingness. The assimilation of new, different words each possessing a specific, unique definition – such as “freethinker,” “humanist,” or “universalist” – more clearly identify what atheism is and who atheists are, and not what we are not.

Given the controversial nature of the discussion over religion, words defined by vague or implicit terms such as “atheism” often lead to the spread of preconceived and ignorant notions. When a word itself cannot be defined accurately and concretely in words, how can one expect the public to react when they encounter a person whose identity, aspirations, and approach to life circle around that seemingly nebulous concept? I remember the regular pattern of conversation whenever I reveal to an acquaintance that I am a secular humanist, not a Hindu like my parents and ancestors. They normally look perplexed and crunch together their eyebrows. They sift through the various messages the hostile media and politicians shoot at them. And finally, they ask, “You don't believe in god? But you seem to be nice...”

Post-Midnight Rant

In bed, in the dark, on July 2, 2011, at 3:25am

INSOMNIA!

I woke up around 3am and I can't sleep right now, so I thought I might as well be productive and draft some sort of post. I'm assuming my sleep inconsistencies over the past few days and/or the fact that I attempted going to bed at 9pm – which is insanely early by my college student standards – have contributed to my bit of insomnia at the moment.

Plus...it is raining really hard right now. But at least that maintains a cool breeze through the windows and keeps the temperatures low, so nothing to worry about.

It has now been exactly 24 hours since my flight landed in Bangalore last night at 3:35am, and during my first day, the major story floating in the air was of a marriage alliance fixed by my grandmother who performs what she calls “social work,” but for all intents and purposes, she's a matchmaker. Considering how many people an Indian marriage involves, I guess it is fair enough to consider marriage “social work” in this country.

With this particular marriage alliance, the two “parties” (I believe 'families' would be a more appropriate term, but 'parties' demonstrates the diplomatic process that this system entails) had agreed to the match as of this evening. However, news that a family member of one of the parties had passed away had surfaced. This basically meant that the match was to be broken or delayed since “talks” or “negotiations” between the two families could no longer proceed immediately as scheduled. In effect, the alliance was broken.

Watching the development of this story over the course of the last day, I realized that self-determinism is not to be found within the bounds of a “traditional lifestyle.” With volumes of cultural law, superstition, and astrology as part of a daily existence dictating personal and interpersonal conduct, no wonder so many people turn to religion as a means of re-assurance. If they personally cannot make decisions without obstructions from ritual or custom, they hope a God can make these decisions for them. Because, obviously, the benevolent God can bypass these earthly customs.

Through a broader lens, this lack of self-determinism ingrained into society continues into socio-economic and political spheres as well. No one questions the concept of caste; the societal oppression must be of God's doing and therefore for the better. Or, caste discrimination must have been deserved due to the karmic concept of having performed adharmik acts in a past life. Either way, the oppression of one by another exists as it is. Punishment by law makes no difference if the victims themselves believe it is their role and proper place in society to be oppressed.  

OK...Finished ranting! I think I will lay here for a few more hours before I start a new day. :P

My Atheism in a Snapshot

I sit at a plastic table draped with a clear, disposable table cloth wearing an intricate, traditional Indian kurta. Members of the local Indian community are assembled in a large one- story house; a Hindu house of worship, a temple, a mandir. The crux of the vibrant – and noisy – gathering is the inauguration of the temple. I chat with the other teenagers about the latest Bollywood films, and we listen to music on our iPods. As we debate over which song to listen to, an auntie calls on all the children to enter the temple and pray. The train of children leaves the table to pray. I do not. I do not believe in God.

Being a minority is difficult; being a minority within a minority is a struggle. I realize that this setback does not have an easy resolution, but it begs for gradual change – a change that I must effectuate. Society views atheists as subordinate, lifeless, vulgar, and lacking a sense of cultural roots. Atheists are typecast as the “druggie” on the street corner or the radical “commie” devoid of patriotism; I am neither. My ideal rests with the great figures of history, such as Jefferson and Nehru, both men of the highest caliber, yet non-theists. Yesterday, these men used their secular identities to unite vast populations under common values of integrity, liberty, justice, and democracy. They manifested the face of atheism that stands strong for conscience, for society, and for cooperation. Today, I challenge society's definition of the atheist; I dictate my own potential. I contribute to society a new perspective, complemented by modern progressivism and collaboration, ancient ethic and honor. I write my personal moral code – for myself, for today.

Some might consider my lack of faith, spirituality, and religion a quirk or even a vagary, but to me atheism is sensible and logical. The prevailing theory of fatalism which is present in all religions seems pointless and detracting from life. Through rejecting fatalism, I feel responsible for my own actions and am aware that any goals I set may be achieved through my own will and not that of any God's Providence. When I am successful, I commend only myself; when I fail, I censure only myself. I have always been a pragmatic person, challenging the various superstitions rooted in the Indian and Hindu cultures. I find reciting Sanskrit incantations for protection, consulting priests for a propitious wedding date, or adorning an amulet for good luck to be an unnecessary attempt to leave the real practicalities of the world behind. Rather than escape these practicalities, I prefer to work with them.

The surroundings are serene, and all I hear are the devotees chanting and bells ringing from the inner sanctum of the temple. I envision the women sari-clad, accompanied by their husbands and children, and the priests' voices crescendoing with the final, collective “Om.” As I wait for the worship to conclude, I reach for the latest edition of Newsweek. I find glaring at me in tight, black, bold font, the headline: “Out, Out Damned Atheists!”

Reactions to "Jesus Camp"

“THE JESUS CAMP”: Through the Eyes of an Atheist
Observations by Niknan

Watch it here: http://tinyurl.com/d8ctvs

This film SCARRED me. Moreover, I had to remind myself that it wasn’t a film, but a documentary – documenting events happening in the richest nation on Earth. This was happening in the United States! I also have come to the conclusion that what these people are practicing is not religion. As far as I know, it’s far from the peace, love, acceptance, and harmony taught at the core of each belief – Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, AND atheism.

An atheist ponders religion.

Nonetheless, I would like to provide a critique of the community/sect/cult presented in the film. I provide that this critique, like the documentary, will appeal to both conservatives and liberals. But I will NOT restrain any of my own opinions for the sake of being less offensive.

Subjects: Becky Fischer, Kids in Ministry International , leader of the “Jesus Camp”

Levi, a 12 year old boy with ambitions of becoming a preacher

Rachael, an 8-ish year old “mall missionary”

Mike Papantonio, a radio host critical of the Christian right, provides a moderate perspective – a voice of reason.

RECURRING THEMES:

1. MILITANTISM
The documentary opens up with a “song and dance” program held at the Christ Triumphant Church. The children are wearing Military camouflage with their faces painted. They brandish sticks and dance to lyrics: “Arise, Arise…He will shake the nation”. This image is enforced throughout the documentary’s 90 minutes as Fischer calls for a generation of Christians to retake America for Christ. She calls for an army of Christians to counter the Muslims in “Pakistan, Israel, and Palestine.”

This is troubling. It’s extremely difficult not to see the similarities between these camo-covered children and those children seen on rough archived video of Al Qaeda training its militants. In fact, this form of militant Christianity is much more powerful than Al Qaeda’s; it had the Bush Administration’s blessings and also those of Ted Haggard (weekly advisor of Bush). Further, this Christian right has the money and resources to achieve its goals, whatever they might be.

2. PRAYING IN TONGUES TO “HOOK UP WITH THE SPIRIT”
This act has shown up multiple times in the documentary, yet I am still not clear what it achieves. If only those hundreds of children took the opportunity to learn a real language to “hook up with” real people – our world would be a more peaceful place. 

3. INDOCTRINATION
“I can go into a playground of kids that don’t know anything about Christianity, lead them to the Lord in a matter of just no time at all. And just moments later they can be seeing visions and hearing the voice of god because they’re so open. They are so usable in Christianity.” – Becky Fischer
This is disturbing enough and doesn’t need commentary.

4. POLITICIZATION 
“President Bush…has brought some real credibility to the Christian faith.” – Becky Fischer
President Bush plays a huge role in the lives of this community, although he never actually appears personally. We see his picture posted on a family’s refrigerator. We see a life-size cardboard cutout of Bush being brought to a podium and being blessed by hundreds of children. Seriously… if you need Bush to bring credibility to your faith, there is 1) something wrong in your faith or 2) something beautiful in Bush. Your choice.

The documentary also shows families at Ted Haggard’s evangelical church in Colorado Springs. Levi, the ambitious preacher, is in awe of Haggard and speaks with him personally after the sermon. Haggard then continues to explain how “kids love the Evangelical message” and how churches like his can “sway every election.”

Ironically, in 2006 Haggard was removed from leadership positions after soliciting a male prostitute and dealing with meth. Not exactly the winner of “Evangelical Idol.”

5. WAR AGAINST SCIENCE
“If you look at Creationism, you realize it’s the only possible answer to all the questions.” 

“Science doesn’t prove anything.”

– Mother of home-schooled Levi.

I was very confused by these comments. Overgeneralizations aside, I assume that when one says that Creationism has all the answers, we are entering into the cycle of circular Biblical reasoning. The Bible might provide a story, but not facts. Science provides facts which must be built into a story.

Let’s take into account that the Ancient Egyptians believed the flooding of the Nile was attributed to God. We no longer believe so because of a certain level of scientific attainment (satellites, radars, patterns, etc). In fact, we find such reasoning foolish and naïve. We now have reasons; we now know that floods are not random acts of God. I am sure that generations of the future will find today’s religion just as foolish and simplistic as we find those of the Ancient Romans or Greeks. 

6. “WE HAVE THE TRUTH” RHETORIC
Having never been a part of the “Judeo-Christian” heritage, it’s this supercilious sentiment which I find most harmful to our world. As an outsider, I don’t see why people can’t be content with their own beliefs rather than trying to force them on others as well. It’s a question of quality over quantity.

A scene at a bowling alley, shows Rachael praying as she bowls the ball. While waiting for her turn to bowl, we also see her reading a Christian tract. Although I don’t agree with this, I found it as acceptable private practice of religion. But this sentiment changed when Rachael walked over to the neighboring lane and handed the tract to a woman in her twenties claiming that:

“God’s just telling me that you’re on his mind and that he wants to take you…and love on you and he has special plans for you.”

Rachael then returns to her father and proudly explained how God drew her to the woman. Needless to say, the father was full of smiles and encouragement for his missionary daughter. 

ONE FINAL NOTE:

Interestingly, when Levi attended Ted Haggard’s church and rock concert, he was wearing a black shirt with a clear image of the Taj Mahal on both the front and the back. Has anyone explained to him and his family that the Taj Mahal was built as a monument for eternal love by a MUSLIM Mughal Emperor *gasp*!!! Burn that shirt!!! Cleanse his soul of Satan!!!

CONCLUSION

Overall, this documentary opens Americans to the radical extremists in their own nation. It asks the religious moderates to debate the radical factions of their faith. And it asks the nonreligious to cooperate with the moderates in order to preserve America’s image of secularity. 

Personally, knowing that a cult faction of the extreme right is intent on a twenty-first century Manifest Destiny is not comforting. 

Moreover, in a globalized society, a United States overcome by such Evangelical rhetoric in practice will be unsustainable. And we were witness to only the tip of the iceberg under the Bush Administration. 

Rather, we must lose the ethocentricity and xenophobia which have conquered the nation for the past decade. And bring together once again the fractured society of the United States to its original, intended equilibrium.