It’s interesting to note the latest comments – diammetrically opposed viewpoints that serve to highlight the opinions of the two people mentioned in the post.  Yet, the post itself did not express any particular prejudices against one group or the other.  However, the commenters chose to interpret them in their own way and therefore, have responded in kind.

It’s a very sad state of things when the three primary religions in the world – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – are constantly at each other’s throats.  Especially when these three have a common bond.  They share the same God, though their beliefs on what happens from Christ onwards varies.  The Jews do not accept Christ as a prophet nor a saviour.  Christians believe Christ is their Saviour.  Muslims believe Christ was a prophet and Mohammed was the greatest prophet of all.

I can’t help but think of an analogy between the three religions and a family of four – a father and three sons who move into a four bedroom house.  The father is proud of his eldest son, Abraham, and showers him with blessings.  Abraham considers himself the Chosen One.  Unfortunately, Christ grows up and becomes a strong man and soon outshines his brother Abraham.  They both declare their love for their father, but in different ways.  Now, little Mohammed has watched his older brothers and their sibling rivalry since birth.  He is growing up and longs to be a part of that rivalry.  Christ no longer considers Abraham a worthy opponent, so he turns to Mohammed.  The father tries to appease the discontent, but to no avail.  Each claims he loves his father the best, but all show an equal lack of understanding.

All three sons have their own rooms, yet they cannot seem to respect anyone’s privacy, so they are constantly spreading themselves about in their siblings’ rooms.  This leads to even more in-fighting.

Meanwhile, their neighbours, Buddha, Brahma, Zeus, Odin, Wicca and others just shake their heads at such a dysfunctional family.

Yet, neither side seem willing to lay aside religious differences.  But, the atheist movement on the Christian side may push that side closer to the negotiation tables.  Will there be enough disillusionment on the Muslim side for them to approach the tables?

Atheism has been growing as more and more people become disillusioned about religion. Perhaps, it is in retaliation towards a particular person or institution which negatively impacted the person in childhood as the individual was being indoctrinated.  Or, perhaps, it is due to lack of tangible evidence of a higher being. God does not appear in a burning bush or call out from the heavens anymore.  Structured religion does not answer people’s common day-to-day needs.  People want instant gratification.  They need money to buy what they need, food on the table, clothes to wear, time to relax and enjoy life.  Prayers for comfort just doesn’t cut it.

The western world is more ready to shed religion because they are somewhat more “liberated” in their thinking.  They see the religious as being “superstitious” and “backwards”, words to describe underdeveloped and developing worlds.  These people hold on to religion as a security blanket.  And when another religion threatens their own, they will fight back.

But, if the west completely drops religion, will the other side do the same?  Christians have been disillusioned for a long time.  How long will it take for the Muslims to feel the same?  Can turning to atheism be the answer to the political crises in the world?  Or will Islam decide to decimate the others?

Once Christianity declines enough and Islam grows, will there be another major religion to challenge them?  Again, religion will set the tone for another crisis.  Or, will Christianity be resurrected?  Some interesting thoughts.

I watched the video, Muslim Demographics, and it was done by an American with a very grave tone.  I don’t know where he gets the data and according to the BBC, it seems some of them have been made up.  However, there really is not a good way to prove or disprove them because the statistics and demographics have not been accurately assessed.  Part of the problem is due to anti-discrimination measures, which prohibits asking about religion and ethnicity.  This video, on the surface, is an apparent propaganda against Muslims – not necessarily violent or hostile, just an attempt to make the other groups of people aware of trends.  He is trying to promote procreation amongst Christians.  I can see where he is coming from. 

As I have mentioned previously, because of issues with global growth rates, the more responsible cultures have decreased their fertility.  However, it does mean that those cultures are in danger of becoming extinct at some point in the future.  Meanwhile, in underdeveloped and developing countries, the birth rate is still extremely high. Even immigrants in developed countries continue with their fertility trends, at least for a while.  So, I can understand why this person claims that it will not be long before Islam will take over the world. 

In support of these claims, though from a different perspective, I also saw a video from an Egyptian preacher who claims that Muslims will take over Europe in 20 years.  His message was different however.  He attempts to tell Muslims that they can take over peacefully.  And that is very true.  With immigration and fertility, the Muslim world does not need to resort to suicide bombings.  Al-Qaeda can sit back and wait for their people to infiltrate slowly and peacefully.   However, this preacher claims that western civilization feels threatened by these Muslims and are attempting to do everything to drive Muslims out, even using the flimsiest of excuses.  He also states that westerners feel threatened because they do not understand Islam or its teachings.  Makes you wonder if they really know about Christianity.

There is likely to be some backlash against Muslims, not to mention any other immigrant group.  In fact, it is already happening in many parts of the world.  However, human rights groups will always be there to protect those persecuted, even if that group becomes the majority. So, will Muslims rule the world?  That is hard to say, but trends do suggest that they are the group that is continuing to increase while other peoples go into decline.  Yet, that does not mean they will be “rulers”.

First off, even the Hindus have differing views on this religious practice. Some have stated that the soul is already released at the moment of death, so this open funeral pyre is not a requirement for the soul to be released. Some believe this practice is antiquated. Having been around for 4000 years, I would agree it is antiquated. However, many Hindus still practice it. That is why many of them still send the bodies back to India to have it done properly.

“Everyone has the right to live and die by their religion.” What would be the effect of allowing Mr. Ghai to have his way? Would the practice of suttee be reintroduced? After all, that was also part of the ancient religious rites of death. What other religious beliefs and practices will we have to accommodate?  Who will foot the bill to convert some ground in order to provide such an area for open pyres?  In most democracies, the consensus usually prevails.  I may be guessing here, but I’m sure the consensus would rather use the money to pay for books for schools rather than converting and subsequently maintain crematoria for an open pyre.  The courts will have to take all that into consideration. What other adverse effects will result from this? Can murder potentially be covered up with the use of open funeral pyres?

The laws of this country forbid open funeral pyre. I don’t care that the government found that open fires to kill all the dead animals that suffered foot-and-mouth disease in 2001 carried no risk to the environment. The government had to get rid of thousands of animals as efficiently as possible and I will not believe that such a report was not politically-motivated. However, it had to be done. The risk to the environment was negligible when compared to the risk of allowing such animals to live. The fact is, some environmental pollution will exist. What about the smell? When wood burns, you can smell it from a mile away. What would a human body smell like? Must we, the general public, endure all this? In a crematorium, it is a closed environment, where toxins would be filtered appropriately. The heat generated by an open funeral pyre could not possibly reach that in a crematorium, so the body would be left to burn for a long time.

I am tired of hearing about people wanting Britain to be tolerant of their religious or cultural beliefs. These same people show absolutely no respect for British law, yet, like a spoiled child, they demand to have their way. Supporters of Mr. Ghai point out that despite the 1930 law against open funeral pyres, it is not “illegal”. They cited the case in 1934 of the open air cremation of the wife of the Nepalese ambassador in Surrey. Just because no one was prosecuted does not make the act “legal”! Mr. Ghai himself broke the law in 2006 after the court had ruled against allowing him to have an open funeral pyre. He went ahead and did it. Northumbria police did nothing at the time, but later stated it “may” have been illegal. There is no “may” about it. It was downright illegal. The law says “No open air funeral pyres!” Did he have an open air funeral pyre? Yes. Was he prosecuted? No. So, what does that say. It does not say that the act was legal. It just says that the law was there for him to break it. And in not prosecuting, the justice system in this country is showing some hypocrisy. Possibly, they were afraid to appear to be non-PC. Even if Mr. Ghai should lose his case this time around, there’s no guarantee that his family will not proceed according to his own wishes.

There’s also the argument that open funeral pyres used to be practiced in this country prior to the 1930 law. What’s the use of pointing out an outdated practice to compare to today’s world? Over the years, it was obviously found to have had adverse effects on health and environment, otherwise, why would it have been banned? India has not banned it, but have people forgotten that India is one of the world’s biggest polluters and it is by far not the healthiest nation?

From Mr. Ghai’s comments, I cannot but think that he is just trying to create some controversy. He calls this nation “squeamish”, so it sounds like he is one of those bullying kids trying to taunt one of the “sweet” kids on the playground.   If he is so insistent on pursuing this “religious” rite, what is his problem with having his body transported to India or Uganda or wherever they will permit it?  Others have done so before him.  He’s been so spoiled in this country that he wants more rules to bend to his wishes. 

One person stated that it will come down to whether this religious practice will be deemed “British” or not. Yes, I have to say that I would like to protect the “British” image and such a practice is not, in my opinion, “British”. Roasting chestnuts on an open fire is a British tradition, roasting Hindus on an open pyre is not.  This is Britain.  These are their rules, their laws. End of story.