I believe the United States has double standards as far as sex is concerned. So much about the United States is sexually oriented. The freedom of sex, the lust for sex, the millions (or billions?) of dollars spent on enhancing sexual pleasures and discovery of newer drugs so that sex can be enjoyed even when one has at least one foot in the grave. Marriages are no longer sacrosanct, they are contracts not so much to raise a loving family but to provide sexual enjoyment. Politicians are products of this obsessive sexual milieu so why should anyone expect them to be saints in their public life?

Of course it all boils down to whose moral standards are we going to judge them by? If these standards are not observed by anyone can we legitimately apply them to politicians? For someone whose sex life began some sixty years ago sex outside of marriage is a sin because to me sex is for procreation and not for pleasure alone. But in the 21st century this line of thought is blasphemous. Today sex is nothing more than physical enjoyment, like eating ice cream when you feel like it.

The moral standards for human behavior have been set by human beings and, therefore, they can be changed and even challenged by human beings. To those of us who have remained faithful to one partner in our collective lives such promiscuity is unpardonable and a violation of the commandments. To the more modern who believe in sex as a pleasurable pastime they should stop indulging in double standards.

Can well-intentioned religious leaders find a cure for the world's intractable problems? This question raises two fundamental questions: "Well-intentioned" and "religion".

It is rare to find religious leaders who are well-intentioned in the sense who really want to resolve world issues without gaining anything from it. Religious or other leaders today always seem to have an eye on the prize. It is either that the leader wants to get the Nobel Peace Prize or the leader hopes to convert those receiving help into their religious beliefs. In the context of eastern beliefs and especially according to Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence when a good act is performed with such expectations the results are never what one desires.

It also raises the question of "religion" -- We understand religion in the narrow sense of the rituals that we practice and rituals really don't add up to religion. Merely because one reads the Bible every Sunday or a Muslim prays five times a day or a Hindu performs a host of rituals in a Temple everyday is not an indication of a pious soul if that ritual does not enhance the quality of that person's life.

It is not how many times we pray that is important but how well we incorporate that prayer into our daily lives and in our relationship with other human beings that is important. So, one can be a well-intentioned religious being but if one does not have the universal love and compassion in one's heart for all fellow beings then one's intentions become suspect.

That the U.S. Congress decided to legislate the importance of Christmas is, in itself, something ridiculous. For centuries the Christian world has been celebrating Christmas and everyone knows its importance to the Christian world. The trouble is that with increasing materialism in the world, especially in the United States, Christmas has become just another holiday to exchange gifts and boost the economy. Everyone is more interested in how much was spent and what it means to the economy rather than the spiritual aspect of the day. Paying lip-service in church for a few minutes -- mind you, the church service must never interfere with the enjoyment of the ball game and other events!! -- does not make a good Christian nor does legislating the importance of Christmas make Americans good Christians. The importance of the day is not even the birth of Jesus but the profound message of love, goodwill and peace that he preached during his lifetime. And, mind you, his love and goodwill were unconditional.
There is also the question of how do we celebrate this event inclusively. How do we make non-Christians realize that this is the day of Love and Peace and not about being a Christian? There is no such thing as Christian Love or Christian Peace.

Continue »

I would look for a Presidential Candidate who does not wear his/her religion on their sleeve, but recognizes the fact that the United States is a country with many different religions and that even if all of them are in the minority, they must be respected and treated as equal. People of the United States have the mistaken notion that secularism means rejection of one's own religion. It is not rejection at all. It is a true and sincere respect of all religions. I am reminded of the time in the 1930s when Christian missionaries came from the West to convert the oppressed "low caste" Indians. They stood on street corners denouncing Hinduism and proclaiming the virtues of Christianity.

Continue »

I think Senator Obama is right to resign from his church. A church, in my opinion, is a house of worship where people go to commune with God. If it is turned into a political or comedy stage then it defeats its purpose. If it is not peace and salvation that one gets from a visit to a church then there is no point in being a member.

The first time Rev. Wright's statements were broadcast my reaction was dismay and disgust. I agree he was expressing the anguish of his community and exposing the hypocrisy of the American political system but I did not think then, and I don't think now, that a church is the place for such outbursts. The spiritual sanctity of a church must be respected by all, even the priest.

We in the United States believe that religion and politics should not mix and yet my grandfather, Mohandas Gandhi, believed otherwise. He said we cannot remove religion from any aspect of human life, least of all politics. For Gandhi religion was the foundation of morality and ethics. How can we put aside morals and ethics from any aspect of our lives? Of course, Gandhi's point of view must be understood in its proper perspective.

Continue »