www.owohrod.com.

This is what came to me, as it were, as I heard Zaphaniah Benjamin introducing a programme on men infertility, and how men should talk about it.  I mean, within the context of the constantly spiralling increase in the human population.   How can the infertility of some men be perceived as a problem that needs addressing?  How can male infertility be more than a personal, rather than a societal problem for human societies? Why is it that an infertile man or couple should burden themselves with the quest to be able to conceive and have a child through their own copulation? Is this an a basic 'survival-induced- prerogative of all species; that they/we reproduce ourselves in order to ensure the survival of the species?  Yes, that I can see, and even accept at that level, but, surely, its validity is weakened when human societies have evolved to the point where the survival of our species.   To be continued!

The supposed and deceptive interaction between 'God' and the faithful continue to be based upon suppositions, implications, assumptions, and magic.  And never on any explicit and honest discourse between 'God' and humans, whether the latter is from the clergy or the ordinary believers. In this respect, it does not really matter - except for the amount of pain and suffering meted out on us humans - whether a person believe in and/or worship, subjugate themselves to the Abrahamic God, or to an inanimate God.  Since neither the one nor the other has any power, except for that which their human devotee exercise on their behalf.  Neither the one nor the other is capable of saving us from our follow, as we have inflicted our own illogicality and fallacious modus operandi on the Gods we have created.  Which is probably inevitable, as the Gods which we have created, can only be representations of us.  Bearing signs and evidence of their creator, us, wi

You might think that is an improvement on the inanimate objects that have been used as, let us say, religious props, before the dominance of the Abrahamic religions in the western world. But it is not much of an improvement, since this supposedly more enlightened and modern humans, the clergy and religious scholars.  Are no better able to prove the existence of their sentient 'God.' Than their supposedly more primitive and 'paganistic' predecessors had been able to that their  inanimate objects and relics were really representing, shall we say, 'living Gods.'  The followers and advocates of the Abrahamic religions are not able to speak on behalf of their 'God' anymore eloquently than their animist and pagan counterparts.  Neither are they able to get their 'God' to intercede in the affairs of humans benevolently.  We already know that us humans do not need the gods to help us in making wars and causing great suffering. 

Bad enough as dynastic rule has been for India, even though it is a composite state made of many previously dynastic states.  It has not been as backward and unstable as its sister state, Pakistan. Whose founding fathers had opted to make it into an Islamic state, instead of constitutionally a secular state.  How much worse it is, now, that the BJP and its supporters should appear to be planning to make India into a religious, a Hindustani state? This is a very regressive and backward step by the BJP government, and one which, with the government's use of modern technology and media.   Has the potential for making India just, if not more of a terrifying place in the future, than Hitler's Third Reich.  Any society that values their 'gods', 'deities', rituals, and religions more than they value human lives, is capable of making the lives of the people truly hellish.  It is, in my view, the gods who, if they are so powerful, should be

To force on them anachronistic aspects of their culture, including dictating to them which animals, if any, they can kill and eat, and which they cannot. Now, what I find most concerning, is how the BJP's programme is backward looking, and, in some respect, almost infantilistic.  At its core, it seems, is the BJP's and its Hindus' theorists' attempt to re-invent the history of the country's Hindus.   And the role of their fabled gods and deities in making India what it is, or, in accordance with their doctrine or religious script, what it was until the Muslims and, I suspect, the British rulers, changed it.  This reminds me of how some people amongst the African Diaspora and Africanists, have sought to delve deep into African and ancient history, to both discover and uncover great kingdoms and empires of the past.  The main difference with the BJP probably being that they want to 'recreate' this perceived 'great Hindu project or e

The response of the 'religious innovators' was to put 'god' back into the closet where nobody could see him and question him.  Where his power would not, in fact, could not be effectively questioned or challenged. Since he would not have to answer any such questions.  As, the religious clergy now place themselves as the sole middle-men between them and god.  Christ might have reputedly placed himself between 'God' and mankind, and declared that nobody can enter their kingdom except through him.  And now the respective religious clergies of all religions have copied him and declared that, to get to Christ, and, I would argue, 'God.'  The faithful must be loyal to and be guided by them; the clergy. In doing so, all the clergy and religious leaders have done, is to make themselves into animated, living representatives of 'God.' To be continued!

If a person is born, say, with one hand, or one leg, or eye.  Would they make a better start in life by accepting that reality, or by repudiating and becoming embittered by it?  Of course, the probability is that, being born as such, the first response is likely to be one of 'acceptance', as an infant.  As not knowing any better in infancy, and not having the intellect and knowledge to compare ourselves with others.   Our first inclination would be to perceive of and accept ourselves as 'the norm' and to see others through this prism.  Yes, somewhat similar to a young male child thinking that all children are the same, until he sees a young female child naked and become aware of the fact that they have different bits, as it were.  It would appear that it is as we grow older and are able to make comparison to compare ourselves with other, that we begin the process of 'self-victimisation'.  Of making ourselves prisoner to our fate. That we

We are likely to find that they have been forced together, through conquest of arms and dominant religious/cultural assimilation, to become a majority Hindu state, post-independence.  Like all other states and countries, past generations of present day India, had been subjected to religious colonisation the elite minority, with their descendants being born into Hinduism. But this sociological reality does not stop the Prime Minister Modi and his BJP storm-troopers and ideologists from attempting to make an exception of India's Muslim population.  Even though they have been living in the land which has now become India, for hundreds and in some cases, thousands of years. Somewhat like Hitler and his Nazis wanting to aryanise Germany and Europe, ignoring the common humanity of all the people of Europe.  So does the BJP and its masterminds want to denying India's Muslim population of their Indian nationality, and subject them to the doctrine and exerci