“Islam, Christianity and the Hindu universe of religion share a mission: to unify the people of the world in one concept of God. The original idea of a world order is from them. It has been the passion of the papal inquisition fighting all heresy. It has been the passion of the Jihad proclaiming the true belief and it has been the motive of hindu guru's coming to the West to drive out the spirit of materialism. Historians are not sure what to say about it: does religion set the people of the world up against one other or are the religiously motivated the real peacemakers? In the Bhagavad Gita Lord K. proclaims the war as the ultimate surrender and act in service of God at the one hand, at the other hand He proclaims the peace and victory of the enlightened righteous rule. In conclusion there is mention of an eternal war of wisdom against ignorance. All religions agree: if God and His justice rule the world there will be everlasting peace.”
                                                                           

“But save for these laws regulating caste there is no other unifying element in all Hinduism. There are two major sects in the religion, and at least fifty-seven sub-sects, each seeking to attain salvation with the aid of its own gods and ceremonies. Christianity, which is even more intensively divided, is at least united by its unanimous recognition of the uniqueness of Jesus. Hinduism has no such common doctrine. It is true that about 300 A.D. an attempt was made to create such a doctrine by combining the three main Hindu gods into a universally acceptable trinity; but the attempt failed dismally. Brahma, the chief god in that trinity, never became popular save with the priests and philosophers. He was not nearly concrete enough a diety for the plain folk to grasp and believe in and now there are only a couple of temples in all of India that are devoted to his worship. And Vishnu and Shiva, the two other gods in the trinity, always remained distinct and seperate, continuing to attract distinct and seperate followings.

Hinduism, despite the fact that it has never been united on any creed or rite, has rarely if ever led to bloodshed. Unlike the Christians, who again and again have resorted even to wholesale slaughter in order to extirpate all heresy, the Hindus have rarely persecuted divergence of faith. They have been wise enough to see that each man has a right to worship as he himself sees fit, and that no man is justified in seeking to force his doctrine on his neighbor. Therefore the worshippers of Vishnu and those of Shiva have dwelt side by side for centuries without bitterness, and countless sub-sects have arisen and disappeared in India with very little violence or acrimony.”
                                                                           

“..despite all the arguments made against Mosaic authorship/editorship, the traditional view is still as critically tenable as any of the others." J.D. Douglas et al 8, Page 2

"..there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the [authorship] problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses." R.E. Friedman 3, Page 28

"...it has long been recognized that... [Moses] cannot have been the author, and that the Pentateuch is in fact anonymous." D.J.A. Clines, 10, Page 580 ”
                                                                           

“When two or more verses in the Bible appear to be in conflict, religious conservatives normally attempt to harmonize the passages. They will often select the clearest and most specific passage(s), and interpret them literally. Explanations are then sought for the remaining verses which are apparently in contradiction. For example, consider the virgin birth of Jesus. Matthew and Luke state specifically that Mary was a virgin at the time that she conceived Jesus. But other passages in the Christian Scriptures by Paul and the author(s) of the gospel of John seem to imply that Jesus' birth was unremarkable. In addition, the gospels of Mark and John do not contain a birth story at all.”
                                                                           

“The public is poorly informed of the assured results of critical scholarship, although those results are commonly taught in colleges, universities and seminaries. In this vacuum, drugstore books and slick magazines play on the fears and ignorance of the uniformed.”
                                                                           

“The Jesus Seminar attempts to change that through its conferences, press releases, books, webpage, etc. The goal is: "to bring the quest of the historical Jesus of Nazareth to the center of a global forum." That is, to extract what the participants have concluded to be the actual words and actions of Jesus from ancient writings, and present these to the public.

Their conclusions differ greatly from what Christian denominations have historically taught. They are also in major conflict with the current beliefs of most present-day conservative Christians. Fellows of the Seminar do not regard Christian Scriptures as inerrant. They do not believe that the authors were uniquely inspired by God. Rather, they view the Bible as a very human document, composed by writers who actively promoted their own theological beliefs (or those of the group to which the writers belonged). The Seminar sees within early Christian writings the evolution of religious thought. The fellows study this over the approximately 18 decades from the time of the execution of Jesus (circa 30 CE) to about 310 CE. They see many passages in conflict with each other and with the historical record.”
                                                                           

“For centuries Muslims have been taught to believe that the Qur'an has been preserved in its original Arabic form since the beginning of time itself, and preserved intact from the period of the "sending down" of the book to Muhammad, right on down till the present. They have been taught that the text which we read now was uniquely inspired, in that there were no intermediary agents who could possibly pollute the integrity of the script.

At the same time they have also been taught that this suggested textual perfection of the book proves that the Qur'an must be the Word of God, as no one but Allah could have created and preserved such a perfected text. This sentiment has become so strongly established in the Muslim world that one will rarely find a Muslim scholar willing to make any critical analysis of its content or of its structure, as to do so would usually be detrimental to his or her health. However, when an analysis is made by a Western scholar upon the Qur'an, that analysis is roundly castigated as being biased from the outset, and even "satanic," and therefore, unworthy of a reply.

But that does not stop the analysis from being undertaken, for the Qur'an when held up to scrutiny finds itself lacking in many areas.

As we have already discussed, we find problems with its sources, its collation, its literary makeup, its supposed uniqueness, and problems even with its content. It is not difficult to find numerous contradictions within the Qur'an, a problem which Muslims and the Qur'an has attempted to alleviate by conveniently allowing for the 'law of abrogation.' But even more devastating towards the integrity of this supposed perfect 'divine book,' are the numerous errors which are found in its pages. It is therefore to those errors which we will now turn in our continuing quest to ascertain whether, indeed, the Qur'an can claim to be the true, and "perfect" Word of God, as Muslims have so often maintained since the very inception of their faith.”
                                                                           

“One cannot have equal respect for both truth and falsehood. It is not even desirable to promote equal respect for truth and falsehood. . . . 

According to Christianity, Jesus was the "son of god" and the whole of the Bible including the New Testament is "revealed" by god. This belief is, however, rejected by Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Islam. Again, according to Islam, Mohammed was a "messenger of allah" and the Koran is "revealed". Now, a person may believe that the first statement is true whereas the second one is false. Alternatively, he may believe that the second statement is true whereas the first one is false. Thirdly, he may believe that both these statements are true; and finally, he may believe that both these statements are false. In the first case, he is a Christian and will have more respect for Christianity. In the second case, he is a Muslim and is certain to have more respect for Islam. In the third case, if the person is really serious, then he is likely to turn schizophrenic, because the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed are different, if not contradictory, on many important issues. In the fourth case, the person is not likely to have any respect for either of these religions.”
                                                                           

“Which Religion?

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism, which, developed from Hinduism, are the main world religions. Each has its own offshoots, which have branched out to form new groups who disagreed with some of the original theories. There are also numerous religious groups formed out of various tribal religions from around the world. Most, if not all, modern religions have developed from ancient tribal beliefs. Wicca (Witchcraft) for instance was practised in what is now the UK long before Christianity came on the scene. I find it somewhat humorous that modern Wiccans are often branded as evil devil worshipers when most, if any, do not worship the devil and that maybe it is those who claim to be religious who should research where the own religion originates from.

Most modern faiths are convinced that theirs is the right religion and that all the others are wrong, although in more recent times there have been efforts to try to harmonise these different groups. However, those calling themselves devout will often have none of this and refuse to compromise at all. Yet any logical thinking person must acknowledge that it is impossible for them all to be right at the same time.

One outstanding feature though that links these beliefs together is that they all stem from the writings and drawings of men and women who lived long ago or from word of mouth handed down from generation to generation. These original writers did not have the advantage of modern science and technology to help them with research in gathering and analysing information that they had collected so how and where did these ideas come from?

These writers often claimed that "they were guided by the hand of god", yet at the same time their work disagreed with writers of different religions. If god is always right and each of these writers of religious theory were guided by god then how can there be so many contradictions and disagreements? The only answer that I can provide to this question is that ‘they were not guided by the hand of god’ at all. The reasons for their writings therefore might have been self-motivation to gain power and respect over the illiterate masses and to put them in good stead with those in authority. However, such writings often got the author into trouble with the authorities. It will probably be argued that some if not most of these writers were poor, if this is the case then maybe their writings were the work of men and women with good intentions and the need to help those in spiritual, emotional and physical pain. If we accept that the writers ‘were guided by the hand of god’ then maybe we can also accept that the contradictions came about as the result of the human weakness to make mistakes or the freedom given to man by god to go astray. Maybe we can allow for some input from Satan to cause these disruptions.”
                                                                           

“Generally the state of mind of a believer in a revelation is the awful arrogance of saying ‘I know, and those who do not agree with my belief are wrong’. In no other field is such arrogance so widespread, in no other field do people feel so utterly certain of the ‘knowledge’. It is to me quite disgusting that anybody should feel so superior, so selected and chosen against all the many who differ in their beliefs or unbeliefs. This would be bad enough, but so many believers do their best to propagate their faith, at the very least to their children but often also to others (and historically there are of course plenty of examples of doing this by force and ruthless brutality.) The fact that stares in the face is that people of the greatest sincerity and of all levels of intelligence differ and have always differed in their religious beliefs. Since at most one can be true, it follows that human beings are extremely liable to belief firmly and honestly in something untrue in the field of revealed religion. One would have expected this obvious fact to lead to some humility, to some thought that however deep one’s faith, one may conceivably be mistaken. Nothing is further from the believer, any believer, than this elementary humility. All in his power (which nowadays in a developed country tends to be confined to his children) must have his faith rammed down their throats. In many cases children are indeed doctrinated with the disgraceful thought that they belong to the one group with superior knowledge who alone have a private wire to the office of the Almighty, all others being less fortunate than they themselves.”       
                                                                           

“Ultimately, however, the import of the Qumran texts resides in something more then their potential to embarrass the Church. The real import of the Qumran texts resides in what they have to reveal of the Holy Land, the soil which, for so many centuries, has voraciously soaked up so much human blood — blood shed in the name of conflicting gods or, to be more accurate, not very dissimilar versions of the same God. Perhaps the documents yet to be divulged may confront us a little more inescapably with the scale and pointlessness of our own madness — and shame us, thereby, at least by a degree or so, in the general direction of sanity. The Dead Sea Scrolls offer a new perspective on the three great religions born in the Middle East. The more one examines those religions, the more one will discern not how much they differ, but how much they overlap and have in common — how much they derive from essentially the same source — and the extent to which most of the quarrels between them, when not precipitated by simple misunderstanding, have stemmed less from spiritual values than from politics, from greed, from selfishness and the presumptuous arrogance of interpretation. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all, at present beset by a resurgent fundamentalism. One would like to believe — though this may be too much to hope for — that greater understanding of their common roots might help curb the prejudice, the bigotry, the intolerance and fanaticism to which fundamentalism is chronically prone.”       
                                                                           

“It has even been suggested that Mark’s Jesus agreed with those of his Jewish contemporaries who thought that God’s ‘earth-creature’ was a hermaphrodite, uniting both sexes in one. Later, the Christian author of the First Epistle to Timothy cited the Eden story to justify status for Christian women. ‘I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man’ (I Timothy 2:12.) Adam was superior because he was formed before Eve; Eve was deceived, whereas Adam was not. Here, the author quoted only from the second story; in the other it was not clear that man was created first. He also distorted it: Eve was deceived first, but, on a reasonable view, she beguiled Adam, who transgressed too. According to the epistle, woman could be saved through childbearing. However, Genesis does not say anything comparable. Rather, it describes the pangs of childbirth and fertility as a punishment for Eve’s disobedience. These texts were creating new scripture by constructive abuse of the old, a process which reaches a climax in the letters ascribed to Paul.

At Ephesians 5:31-2 the author inclined to believe that the union of man and woman (‘one flesh’) was a mysterious reference to the union of Christ and his Church; this hidden meaning is not at all in Genesis. At Romans 5:12-18 Paul himself tells his Roman Christians how through one man, Adam, sin ‘entered into the world’ and by the sin of one man death reigned too. These famous verses have inspired whole theories of sin and original sin which have changed many Christians’ perspective on human nature. It seems clear that the Fall of Adam and Eve was just not the moral tale of a single couple’s after: the story was meant to be the origin of a change for all subsequent humans. It is not, however, stated that what originated was sin or sinfulness, words which occur nowhere in the Hebrew text. It was St. Augustine who ended by arguing that original sin had been transmitted to each of us through Adam, a view which he backed up by Paul’s language in Romans 5. However, he followed a mistranslation of it, based only on a Latin version of the text. Paul’s Greek had merely said that ‘death passed upon all men, because [in that] all sinned’; Augustine followed an author who mistook it to say ‘death passed upon all men because of Adam, [in whom] all sinned . . .’ Original sin was read unnecessarily into Genesis and was then forced on to Paul by a wrong translation of his writings. In Genesis, nothing prevents us from thinking that Adam and Eve from the start of their lives had been expected to make love, reproduce and eventually die.

After sentencing them, God tells Adam that he will sweat for a living . . . Toil, not death, is to be his punishment; death had always been part of the couple’s dusty nature, and even now, it befalls them only after long years outside Eden. Through Adam toil is added to man’s work, the toil of hoeing, weeding and back-breaking labour on every plot of ground. Through Eve comes woman’s pains of childbirth. The two of them transgress by disobeying and eating from the tree of knowledge: ‘disobedience: man’s original virtue’, remarked Oscar Wilde. They are expelled from Eden not in order to die, but so that they will not go on to further crimes and taste the tree of life (Genesis 3:22.) Through Adam and Eve’s misconduct, we are not condemned to death. We are condemned to hard gardening and painful childbirth; we are also denied the chance of stealing eternal life. . . . The fruit of the tree was an aphrodisiac, in Augustine’s opinion, and caused sexual lust to conquer our will. Many artists, including Durer, placed a cat, about to pounce, beneath the tree from which our parents ate; cats (respected by Muslims) had become symbols of sexual desire in early Christian literature . . .

When pressed to the letter, the story is unfair to serpents and women . . . (God’s prohibition to eat of the tree is not addressed to the serpent; it also occurs before Eve has been created from Adam’s rib.) Yet a woman’s subordinate desire for her husband is one of the punishments for the Fall.

In seventeenth-century England, women were asked to ask forgiveness in their prayers for the sins of Eve. A similar prayer is still demanded from Jewish women by one minority group in Israel. The opening chapters of Genesis do not meet the requirement that truth should cohere: they are made up from two contradictory sources. They do not correspond to the facts, for we know now more of the age of the world, the fact of its evolution and the process which stretched beyond six days of work or a garden of greenery near the Euphrates River; our Eve has been traced back to Africa, while Adam is imagined as a pygmy. Totally untrue, the stories have been cited untruly to make yet more scripture, but they continue to be an arena for the imagination . . .”
                                                                           

“Religions of the world have become lifeless mockeries . . . 

If there is ever to be a universal religion, it must be one which will have no location in place or time, which will be infinite like the God it will preach, and whose sun will shine upon the followers of Krishna and Christ, on saints and sinners alike; which will not be Brahmanic or Buddhist, Christian or Mohammedan, but the sum total of all these, and still have infinite pace for development; which in its catholicity will embrace in its finite arms, and find a place for every human being, from the lowest groveling savage not far removed from the brute, to the highest man towering by the virtues of his head and heart above humanity, making society stand in awe of him and doubt his human nature.

It will be a religion which will have no place for persecution or intolerance in its polity, which will recognize divinity in every man and woman, and whose whole scope, whose whole force, will be centred on aiding humanity to realise its own true, divine nature.”       
                                                                           

“The main objective of the Gita is to help people struggling in the darkness of ignorance cross the ocean of transmigration and reach the spiritual shore of liberation while living and working in the society. The central teaching of the Gita is the attainment of freedom or happiness from the bondage of life by doing one’s duty. Always remember the glory and greatness of the creator and do your duty efficiently without being attached to or affected by the results even if that duty may at times demand unavoidable violence. Some people neglect or give up their duty in life for the sake of a spiritual life while others excuse themselves from spiritual practices because they believe that they have no time. The Lord’s message is to sanctify the entire living process itself. Whatever a person does or thinks ought to be done for the glory and satisfaction of the Maker. No effort or cost is necessary for this process. Do your duty as a service to the Lord and humanity and see God alone in everything in a spiritual frame of mind. In order to gain such a spiritual frame of mind, personal discipline, austerity, penance, good conduct, selfless service, yogic practices, meditation, worship, prayer, rituals, and study of scriptures, as well as the company of holy persons, pilgrimage, chanting of the holy names of God, and Self-inquiry are needed to purify the body, mind, and intellect. One must learn to give up lust, anger, greed, and establish mastery over the six senses (hearing, touch, sight, taste, smell, and mind) by the purified intellect. One should always remember that all works are done by the energy of nature and that he or she is not the doer but only an instrument. One must strive for excellence in all undertakings but maintain equanimity in success and failure, gain and loss, and pain and pleasure.”       
                                                                           

“Direct Perception versus Scriptures
From The Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva
Section CLXII
Translated by Sri Kisari Mohan Ganguli

Vaisampayana said: Yudhishthira once more asked Bhishma the son of Santanu, saying, "O thou of great intelligence, O foremost of all persons conversant with duties, which indeed, of the two, direct perception and the scriptures, is to be regarded as authority for arriving at a conclusion?"

Bhishma said: I think, there is no doubt in this. Listen to me, O thou of great wisdom! I shall answer thee. The question thou hast asked is certainly proper. It is easy to cherish doubt. But the solution of that doubt is difficult. Innumerable are the instances, in respect of both direct perception and audition (or the scriptures), in which doubts may arise.

Certain persons, who delight in the name of logicians, verily imagining themselves to be possessed of superior wisdom, affirm that direct perception is the only authority. They assert that nothing, however true, is existent, which is not directly perceivable; or, at least they doubt the existence of those objects. Indeed, such assertions involve an absurdity and they who make them are of foolish understanding, whatever may be their pride of learning. If, on the other hand, thou doubtest as to how the one (indivisible Brahman or the Supreme Reality) could be the cause, I answer that one would understand it only after a long course of years and with the assistance of Yoga practised without idleness. Indeed, O Bharata, one that lives according to such means as present themselves (without, i.e., one’s being wedded to this or that settled mode of life), and one that is devoted (to the solution of the question), would be capable of understanding it. None else, truly, is competent for comprehending it. When one attains to the very end of reasons (or reasoning processes) one then attains to that excellent and all comprehending knowledge- that vast mass of effulgence which illumines the entire universe (called Brahman).

That knowledge, O king, which is derived from reason (or inferences), can scarcely be said to be knowledge. Such knowledge should be rejected. It should be noted that it is not defined or comprehended by the word. It should, therefore, be rejected!”       
                                                                           

“In my final analysis it is important to understand the concept of "True Religion". Religion cannot be deemed to be "true" because Bible, Koran, Granth, Vedas, etc. said it is true. The contents of each must be examined to be verified by reasoning, which must be in harmony with natural laws and science. Any contradictions or inconsistencies will be in violation of God's attribute of Omnisciency.

The Vedic religion was not and is not like other present day religions, nor is it exclusive and confined to the inhabitants of India. It is universal and does not derive its authority from any single person, no matter how holy or wise. It humbly maintains that truth was complementary and not exclusive and contradictory and as such it commands allegiance to all ages. This true religion of the Vedas never feared the advancement of science, nor was it guilty of terrors of the Inquisition. It never shed the blood of a Galileo, a Copernicus or a Bruno.

All the young and inquisitive minds of past and this modern age are of the fervid impression that the principles of physics, chemistry and of other sciences, had their origination from their European ancestors and that no other race were aware of these before. It is certainly difficult to accredit these sciences to the fallen state of India; nevertheless this is where it all began.

The fixedness of the Sun, the motion of the earth, of fixed and moving stars (the milky way), the planetary systems, of the moons, of earthquakes and hurricanes and many countless branches of sciences can be incontrovertible be proven by the many branches of Vedic philosophy. Even the discovery of the law of gravitation of which many credited Sir Isaac Newton becomes contradicted when many Vedic verses deal with the law of gravitation, thousands of years earlier.

The one true religion frees us from the rancor of false religions and attachments of the materialistic world. In reality, we should not deprive ourselves of the joy of what God has given us in His creation, but we should not abuse, threaten, covet or be attached to them. These dereliction, and attachments through sentiments and emotions, bring us unhappiness, as all things created are transient, even us.

Pain and misery are conclusively God's Divine justice. If we do not know what is sinning, how can the world become sinless? If we cannot eradicate sin, how can suffering be eliminated?

Souls are independent, free at will to accept or decline any religion. No parent, teacher, religious order or government should enforce its ideals on any child, student, followers or subjects respectively. All religion must be taught so that everyone can distinguish from what is right or wrong, true or false without any prejudice.

"What, then, in all this, is the function of education and of the school? They should help the young person to grow up in such a spirit that these fundamental principles should be to him as the air in which he breathes." Albert Einstein

The emphasis of religious tolerance is a commanding and transcending event, tied to all religious, social and political bodies of all secular nations of the world today. Thus subjection to such a comprising rule becomes and remains only a temporary mainstay. It creates an artificial peace among mankind on the outside, while on the inside, it is tearing our creation to threads with sudden sporadic and extremely volatile events. This event recognizes the presence of an immediate and serious problem, but to bury it under tolerance is asking our children and future generations to come to find a solution, if they can; live with it the way we do or face the consequences of its dark side.

The cowardice and bigotry that was inherited from our forefathers must not continue to hide its ugly face under the pretence of "religious tolerance" but must be courageously attacked in the most rational way. It is not difficult in this modern age whereby educational institutions can instill a sense of pride in having amicable and impartial discussions base on all religions.

If there is a "truth" that can instill universal peace and harmony among mankind it must be present somewhere in one of these religions. Young minds must be encouraged in this way to be more inquisitive and prudent in arriving at this truth.

We are supposed to be of an educated nature, yet it is difficult to teach critical thinking (reasoning) without inevitably offending someone. Does this mean we should altogether abandon intellectual reasoning and let emotional and psychological pursuit of religion continue its irrational course?

One has nothing to fear but everything to gain, from the honest pursuit of truth. The desire for knowledge can only be for mankind's long-range benefit. We must be free and independent to question prevailing doctrines since we are virtually inundated with it in our schools, by our parents, by our cultures and definitely so by the mass media.

"I believe in a religion based on universal principles and embracing all that has been accepted as truth by humanity and that will continue to be obeyed in the ages to come. This is what I call religion; Eternal Primitive religion (for it is above the hostility of human beliefs).....That alone which is worthy to be believed by all men and in all ages, I hold as acceptable." Swami Dayanand

In conclusion, since we are born in conditions far inferior to the Ancient Vedic age of pure monotheism, the PATH to God in this age will be the rejection of all dogmas which may lead to Atheism. The RIGHT PATH begins with the teachings of the Last Reformer, since his purpose of coming is the act of a Just God demonstrating mercy and compassion for the human soul. The studies of the Vedic systems of philosophy and the Vedas through the practice of Yoga is the TRUE PATH which will eventually lead to Emancipation.

The wisdom to love will prevail always within me. Whatever our conditions are, is due to the past inclinations of the souls, and that is definitely the Divine Justice of Supreme Being. It is His will, mercy and compassion that all souls are enlightened to conquer their weaknesses and rise to a superior condition through the wisdom of the one true path, the Vedic religion.”       
                                                                           

“Finding the Truth

There are thousands of "beliefs", political, religious or philosophical doctrines and all of them are in contrast with each other. Of course not all of them can be true. Yet their supporters claim that theirs is the only true doctrine. In my opinion truth is infinite and therefore no person, group or religion can claim to possess it. There is no book that can contain the infinite truth. All doctrines and ideologies posses a part of the truth. Things are not black and white. They come in different shades and colors. The light of the sun shines on all things, yet each thing reflects that light with a different wavelength and that is why you see the variety of colors in this world. The light is one, yet it manifests itself in millions of colors.

Truth is also one, yet each person understands it differently. We see the truth in different ways, each sees a facet of it. Who can decry the facet that someone holds true and dear to his heart? The Truth is one and only, but because each person’s mental capacity, social and cultural background is different, that same Truth for each person has a different flavor. The variety is not in the Truth itself but in its containers.

The absolute Truth is unattainable. It is too big for us humans with our limited mental capacity to grasp. All we can aspire is to see and understand one or few aspects of the Truth. Think of the truth as this Earth. We are all in contact with it and experience it. But while we are standing on its surface our experience of it is limited. Since the Earth is made of mountains, plateaus, oceans, forests, deserts, and many more features, each one of us can only see what is around him. No one can claim to have the only true view of the Earth from his or her vantage point. No matter where we are and no matter how vast are the horizons before us we cannot see the entire Earth.

That is exactly how we can see the truth. We see only part of it. And what we see depends on the social, cultural and religious ground on which we are standing.

People see the same reality from different angles. What they see is different, but they are just seeing different facets of the same reality. This realization, that my truth and yours are not different, will enrich our understanding instead of becoming points of contention. Once we become aware of our limitations, we stop having "blind faith" about anything. We know that our understanding is limited and it is subject to change. So we learn to think laterally, become open to other possibilities, doubt and question. Though we may think we have found the truth, we know that the truth has other hidden facets that we have not seen yet. By having an open mind, listening to other theories, we learn more. The more we know, the more we find how little we know. This is the essence of freethinking. This is how philosophers think. It is much different from the thinking of a religious person who believes all truth can be contained in few pages of a book, and that is all there is to it, and nothing more.

Just as there is truth in everything, there is also falsehood in everything. There is nothing that can be defined as absolutely wrong, just as there is nothing that can be defined as absolutely true. In every black there is an element of whiteness and in every white there is a component of lackness. The method to arrive at the truth is through critical analysis of different ideas. Truth will sparkle when different ideas clash. If you and I never talk, you will never know my point of view and I will not know yours.

I do not believe that any religion is true. They are all man made. And just as any other man made philosophy and school of thought, every religion is partially true and partially wrong. The proportion may vary from religion to religion. But since the absolute truth is unattainable and what we can understand is relative and subject to our cultural biases and personal predispositions, what you think is true may seem untrue to me and vice versa.

So what shall we do? If we never talk, we’ll never learn each other’s points of view and the gap between us grows deeper. Some matters are of taste and should be left to the individual. For example, do you believe in reincarnation or you don’t? Do you believe in the survival of the soul after the death or you don’t? Do you believe in the existence of God or you don’t? These are personal beliefs. Whether we agree on them or not, it does not change anything. We may disagree on these personal issues and still live and work together in the same society in peace and harmony.

But what if our beliefs infringe the rights of the others? What if I believe in a god as the owner of this universe that has ordered me to kill anyone who fails to recognize him? What if I believe that my god wants me to beat my wife if she is not obedient to me, or kill my daughter if I suspect lewdness on her part, or subdue and humiliate my neighbor if his religion is not the right one?

You obviously cannot sit idle and "respect" my belief. You have two choices, you either arm yourself and try to kill me before I kill you or you try to educate me and make me see that what I believe is morally and rationally wrong.

In my opinion, since we all have different beliefs, if we opt the first rout and start killing each other very few of us will remain in this world. Islam advocates Jihad, it encourages you to fight and kill the unbelievers until everyone’s religion is Islam. This is the barbaric way to handle the differences. The winner is not necessarily the one who is right but the one who has the might. Hitler and Muhammad both believed in violence as a legitimate mean to impose their philosophy. The result, in both cases was catastrophic.

Faith blinds. As a believer I am incapable to see my errors. If I am only talking with my peers who also believe in what I believe they strengthen my faith and if our faith is wrong we are both confirmed in our ignorance. We will sit in our synagogues, churches or mosques and say how good we are and how evil you are; how much god loves us and how much he hates you and so on. This is the way we have done so far and it wasn’t a picnic. Now imagine we who have so much hate, have also atomic and biological bombs. Pakistan has atomic bomb, and Iraq has biological weapons. Of course if they use their arsenals against the West or Israel, they will be wiped out. But they are fanatics. They are the suicide bombers. They cannot think straight. They believe that they will go to Paradise whether they kill of they are killed.

Obviously there is a lot at stake. We cannot just sit and let a catastrophe of unimaginable proportion happen. The destruction of our country, and our neighboring countries is painful and sad, yet it is nothing with what is going to befall us, if we do not stop this madness.

I suggest, let us take the other rout. Let us discuss and make each other see where we are wrong. I believe in what I believe and you have faith in yours. I am not able to see the errors of my faith and you are not able to see yours. Let us find out the truth. You show my errors, and let me show yours. I won’t be offended if you tell me where I am wrong. But please don’t take it personally when I point out your errors. You and I should talk and let our ideas clash, let us debate, let us find the truth, but let us be friends and love each other like brothers and sisters.

What would you do if you find out that your son or someone you love has joined a very dangerous cult? Would you sit idle and let him harm himself and others because of his beliefs? Would you hate him, punish him or kill him for it? If you are a wise person you will educate yourself about that cult and try to help him see the dangerous road that he is taking.

We humans are brothers and sisters to each other. This is the first and foremost truth that we all must be aware of. Once this feeling of love and oneness is established among all the members of humanity, we should sit and talk to each other; listen and learn from each other. We have to point out to the errors of each other and not be offended if our own errors are singled out.

Love of your brother and sister in humanity comes first. Your beliefs, ideas, doctrines and religion, come next. Only with this spirit of empathy, care and understanding, you should sit with your Baha'i, Jewish, Christian or Communist brothers and show them their errors. Only when you love them more than your religion you are not offended if they too criticize the errors of your beliefs.

I am a humanist. I love all humanity. For me, a Jew, a Baha'i, a Muslim, an Iranian, an Iraqi, an American, a black, a white or a Chinese are all the same. I hate no one. I love every human being, irrespective of his or her color, race, nationality or religion. But that does not mean that I approve of what they do, say or believe. I feel it is my duty to show them their errors if those errors harm others. And I would accept with gratitude and humility if they helped me see mine.

I know that there is something good in every religion. But as a whole religions have done more harm than good. Religion is the most powerful force of disunity among humankind. All religions, without any exception, are based on false premises. We cannot build our prosperity on false and shaky foundations. Truth, and nothing but truth will set us free. And to find the truth, we have to talk and expose the fallacies of our beliefs. I do not disagree with religion as a personal bliss. The belief in a deity that looks over our shoulders, takes care of us and comes to our aid when we need him is uplifting and very therapeutic. The faith in a personal god, gives many people a sense of peace. It helps many overcome their weaknesses. It is a crutch that they can lean on. The psychological benefit of believing, for many millions of people is incalculable. To deprive people of believing in a personal god is not fair. People must wean themselves from religions, whenever THEY are ready. They will toss aside this crutch only when THEY feel that they can walk with their own feet, see with their own eyes and understand with their own rational thinking. We should not force people out of religion. We should let them mature on their own just as we would let a chicken to hatch in the egg until it is ready to break its shell and emerge from it on its own. But when our belief becomes the cause of disunity and an excuse to kill, maim and hate others, we should not remain silent. We have to make reason prevail. We have to stop those who perpetrate crimes against humanity in the name of their god. No mater how strong is their belief and how numerous is their numbers; we have to put a halt at their insanity. If something is wrong, it does not become right just because the majority believes it.”