 Welcome back to Think Tech, I'm Jay Fidel, this is Global Connections, and today we're going to talk about spirituality, psychology, and religion. They're all connected, and I'm with Dr. Roopmati Khandikar who joins us from New York. We are so happy to have her on the show because she wrote a book about this stuff, and I didn't know that. I just wanted to talk to her about, you know, religion and spirituality, and then I find that she wrote a book about it. What do you think about that? Okay, Roopmati, welcome to the show, so nice to see you again. Hello, Haji, and it's my honor and pleasure to be back with you on this show in the New Year, so amazing to be back. Yeah, same here, same here. So, let's talk about your book, you know, you are so prolific. Every time I talk to you, there's another book. So, this one's called Positive Psychology, Spirituality and Religion. Could you tell us what this book is about? So, now this show promises to make us gurus of some kind, but I wrote this book during the pandemic, one of the two books that I wrote in the pandemic, and it was a time of a lot of, you know, inward thinking, so it has to come out into a book. So, that's how this book came about. And this topic that we speak about religion is such a far-fetched topic that we can't even get to the tip of it even if we start. So, this was a nice beginning to it. So, let's go to it. Okay, let's try to take our world trip in terms of spirituality and religion. Yes. You know, when I was thinking about this, I thought to myself, you know, spirituality, religion, you know, as organized spirituality, if you will, is everywhere. It's just part of the human experience, the human condition, and it has affected the life in all human communities, all cultures, all cultures and all countries, and all continents. It's there, it's everywhere. And of course, you know, now, these days, you wonder whether it's a good thing, because sometimes it has turned sour, and it has turned malevolent, and it has turned, you know, racist and bigoted and replete with hatred. And you wonder, you know, exactly how helpful it is in terms of making the world a better place in terms of making, you know, people and cultures and countries more progressive and enlightened. And I'm developing a very, you know, pessimistic view of that, because I see that a lot of religions that were well-motivated at the inception are no longer well-motivated. And we should take our world trip today, Rootmati, and look at some of them and see what they mean, what they mean to the people who practice them, what they mean to the country in which they're practiced, what they mean to the other people in that country who don't practice them, and how they get into fights and arguments and terrible genocides over religion, how they get into wars with other countries. So we should talk about that. What are your thoughts on the subject? You're so right about this, Jay. See, religion is adherence to values, adherence to your faith, keeping in between your line and demarcation of good and bad. That's what religion meant, isn't it? But the moment it started being used as a means or a political tool, that's when the bickering has started. It is religion was meant to unite, religion was meant to, even if we accept that religion was meant to spread your kingdom, and even that was accepted to spread your religion, even that was accepted. But when religion is used to divide people, that is when the point of conflict happens, isn't it, Jay? When blood is spilled in the name of religion, there is a big problem. And that is a very hurting point of religion, because religion makes you feel what is good and what is wrong. It gives you, there is a lot of respect for your own religion and for the other religion that is involved. That's when you have spirituality in religion. So when religion is used, there is a lot of hardness to religion. It is used to divide the bigotry, the racism, the looking down upon religions, the blaming onto religions. That is the point which human race has a spiral downward in. Religion was always meant to be uplifting. It was meant to guide your spirit when you are in doubt. So religion was always a guiding light for everybody. And now when we hear religion, we automatically, we think about riots, we think about divisions, we think about murders, we think about conflicts, we think about which political party is going to come on which religious basis. And a main point about this is Jay, we think about the visibility of religions. See, like the four main religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and the fourth is atheists, those people who don't believe in religion, doesn't make them less of a human being. They also believe in a set of values that they don't believe in God. So even that needs respect. So when you have these four big main religions and then the other religions with people, maybe an individual fears that he needs and respects this set of values, this set of cosmic placements, and he needs to be respected on that. My religion doesn't mean I will tell you, you will follow it. Or my religion doesn't mean if you don't follow my religion, I will hate you. It's that hate which has come into religion is a very dangerous concept. And Jay, that happened because people have used this. It's a constitution of life, but it can't be used as a constitution of a country. So when you have theocratic countries basing their modern-day life on religious books which are written in ancient times to guide you through ancient times, there's a big problem. So religion has become a very complicated issue in today's geopolitical system because not only for power, for ruling nations and for dividing people, it is used for convenience. Religion is used for convenience. And that is where our problem lies. So you've spent a lot of time in the United Nations. Yes. How does religion play out in the United Nations? Do you see positive or negative aspects of it when you put something short of 200 countries together? Like I told you, this is about the visibility of religions. You will not be able to make out this one is a Jew or a Christian unless you wear something related to your religion. So that visibility invites eyes. Otherwise you can just be one of the crowd. So religion when it's visible is an invitation for glances, but otherwise everybody stays together. Humanity is one notch above religion. See, we have to divide religion and humanity because right now religion is one notch below humanity. Earlier religion was respect to humanity. Now if you're very religious, we say that you're respecting people and everything, but if you're a fanatic, you're dangerous to humanity. So negative aspect of religion has come in. Well, you know, you spoke about the main religions and you spoke about religions that are maybe less enlightened or less altruistic, if you will. And I guess the question I have for you, this is a hard one, group body. How can I tell a genuine religion where the religion is looking to improve life or humanity and a religion which has devolved into hatred and violence? How can I tell which is the dividing line between the one and the other? CJ, religion in a singularity is all about respect, one god, million gods, one person, one set of values, anything. But when you are restricted by religion, you can't do this because you're religious and you can't do this because it doesn't follow our religious belief that becomes an intrusion of your personal space. In encompassing the entire scenario J, it boils down to personal choices, religion. So when a person of another religion dominating is very difficult to comprehend, so which religion is good and which religion is bad, there is a relative perspective to that because the person inside the religion will feel that my religion is the best, the person outside the religion will be like, I don't want to come into your religion, I prefer my own space, so that kind of pushing the common space is a problem. And so the secularity that has to come in, that respect that has to come in for the other is very important in religion. It's very interesting. In the United States, a lot of the original groups that came here and in fact who participated in the constitution and founding our republic, they wanted to separate church and state. And they felt that it was very important to do that because the countries they had come from did not have a separation of church and state. So you could be punished for being in a certain religion and not another one. And the church in many countries in Europe would have impositions over people who were not Catholic or not Christian. And the founding fathers wanted to avoid that. So they made the First Amendment, they said that the government would not participate in the establishment of a religion. And that's been held to be more than just establishing it, just the government should not get involved in religion. But over recent years, it seems to me we've lost that in the United States. And a lot of people say, well, it's Christianity and anything else doesn't work. So we're going to focus on Christianity. And if you're anything else, we're going to be bigoted against you. And this has been a tremendous problem in terms of the melting pot in terms of people who come from other countries and cultures with other religions. And they have to deal with this white evangelistic kind of movement that would marginalize them because they are not white Christians. So the question I put to you is, how does that affect the country? We'll talk about the United States for a moment. We'll talk about other countries too. But how does that affect the culture of the society when you have an emerging and strong movement that would exclude anything but white Christians? CJ, arguably, what the United States has done is right when they say that they will not promote or protect any single religion. But it's not apologetic to be a majority of white Christians, isn't it? You should never be apologetic about your religion. Whatever the condition is, never be apologetic about your religion. You have to be proud of your religion. Only then you can practice your values. So in my opinion, it's a personal opinion. Why should the white Christians be apologetic about being white Christians? Only thing is the tolerance has to be increased at that level because America is a melting point. And when you have people coming from outside, it's fine. But you see, CJ, the tolerance gets affected when you have different cultural values of theirs being thrust upon the settled people. That is when you see a person of another religion coming, say, to a church and trying to say, you cannot, suppose they don't eat pork or they don't eat beef, a hindu doesn't eat beef, Muslim doesn't eat pork. And if somebody comes and tells a white Christian, hey, you cannot eat this because my religion says no, you don't eat it, don't eat it. But if a white Christian eats it, it's okay. So why should you make the other person apologetic? And the state is absolutely right in saying that they're not part of this religious circus because being a democracy, if the state comes in earlier in ancient times, the state was propagated on the basis of sword. There was a lot of problem in trust to the state. So when the state does not put their hands in the murky waters of religion, they stay away from controversy. So it becomes a personal choice and your personal space. And everywhere is written, the main point that our constitution gives is liberty, fraternity, and equality. So everybody has an equal chance. And you have the liberty and freedom to practice what you preach. And what is that? It's all good. But otherwise, you see, religion would have become such a dividing factor and difficult for the state to interfere and intermingle in personal problems. So they have kept this and it's right. I think we have a kind of virus about this. Look, for example, at the Dobbs case and striking down Roe v. Wade and outlawing abortion. And at the base of it, that's a religious motivation. That's an ideology based in religion. There are some religions that have a completely different view of abortion. And they think abortion, based on whatever the religious official says, sometimes is required, not prohibited but required. So what we have is government gets involved and religion government becomes their purveyor of a certain religion as against other religions. This is really a huge step backward. As you said, we've meant to keep out of that. The government should not be involved. And wherever it gets involved in religion, you have a problem. I mean, I'm thinking of Hitler. He didn't like the Jews. And that whole government was determined to eradicate the Jews. And they went a long way to do that. Why would they care? Why should they care? Why should a government care about this, except for bad reasons? But I like, there's some odd things that come up. For example, in China, as a communist country, they don't want religion. And they do all they can to diminish religious organizations and awareness. And so there's this Falun Gong organization, which I mean, I'm not sure the definition is correct, but they define it as something akin to a religion, and they persecute it. So you have persecution by the government of something which is seen as a religion. This is not a good thing. If there was an American constitution, and it was faithful to that American constitution, China would never do that, right? This is not progressive at all. Yes. Take it on face value, Jay. Theocratic societies are not as progressive as democratic society. The moment the government starts following the religion path, there is a downward spiral in the quality of governance, in the quality of feedback that you get from the government, from the people, from the kind of the response that you give people to their problems. The moment you get religion into it, there is a lot of, why don't we have the word secular in our constitution? We don't have the word secular. It is equality, liberty, fraternity. But secular is not this. There is a tolerance for, you know, you try to keep religion to a basic minimum that works in the government's favor. The moment the government takes a side of religion, it is, see, it has got a lot of personal sentiments because religion affects your day to day routine, your spiritual inner being. You know, there is a lot of encompassing aspect to religion. The moment the government enters that and it hurts your values, it hurts your faith system, you have a negative outlook to governments. Not now, maybe you agree with the government now, but 10 years onwards, you will say that that government acted on the basis of religion. So you see most of the successful governments try to keep themselves out of religion. Theocratic societies have a big problem in equality, big problem of women rights, big problem of riots, there is a lot of intolerance in their society. So we have a very secular constitution today and we are thankful to the drafting fathers, but you have to understand that they did not include secular. You need not be apologetic about your religion, whether you're a migrant, whether you're a citizen, whether you're anybody. Once you come into this country, you have to, you can practice what you preach with freedom. That is the whole notion about it. So in the newspaper, within the last few days, there was an incident in, I guess, upstate New York College called Hamlin College and there was an art teacher. I don't know if you saw this. It was an art teacher who told her class that, among other things, they were going to study Muslim art. And she told her class, including some Muslim students, that there would be art there depicting Mohammed. And apparently, I wasn't aware of this, to depict Mohammed is against the religion. So she told him, if it troubles you, don't take the class or don't attend. But I will show some Renaissance paintings of Mohammed. Yes. And she did. After warning them a number of times that this might be offensive to some people on the basis of their religion. And some of the students, not many, one or two, complained to the college anyway, even though they had been warned. And she was fired, teacher was fired for showing. And this reminds me of Salman Rushdie, if you remember him, wrote books. And there were Muslims who felt that these were antithetical to Muslim beliefs and deserve violence and they threatened to assassinate him. And most recently, he was attacked while he was giving a speech 20 years later, 30 years later. It's really remarkable how, and of course, all he's doing is lecturing and all that teacher was doing was showing a painting. A painting that's recognized in the art world. So I guess the question I put to you was what obligation does the government, oh, and one more thing, me and Mark. And me and Mark, you have various religious groups that kill each other in large numbers. So what is the obligation of the government not only to not get involved, to prevent the politicization of religion, to prevent the weaponization of religion, but to stop those things affirmatively. The government of me and Mark, the government of New York or whatever that college is, and protect Salman Rushdie. Shouldn't the government step in and make very sure that those things don't happen? No, Jay. See, this religion is like our COVID virus. The starting points are different places are the theocratic nations. So this negative aspect of Islam begins in these nations when they fund terrorist activities. Now in general, we don't have a definition of terrorism in the international order. So we cannot book them under a particular notion. But the funding that comes for Islam for terrorist activities makes Islam a dangerous religion in our eyes. See, in the Renaissance period, if you criticize God, if you criticize the king, you are not persecuted. But right now we fear to criticize the other religion. And especially if it's a violent religion, we hold our horses and we say, let them be. But you see, Jay, there is arguably a point that violence stems from a particular religion right now, which is the fastest spreading religion right now. And Islam needs to have more people in power who will come and give out the good aspects of Islam. There are people who are good. But why we see only the what is the impatient side of Islam? Why we should see the violent side of Islam? When we see that they are the main countries which are fighting bring in Islam, it becomes a controversial point for us. It's a visible this because when you have freedom to wear what you want, their religion says, no, you can't wear what you want. So if they come in our territory, they'll wear what they want. But if we go in the territory, we can't wear what they want. So there's a big difference in the tolerance of both the religions. So it's not the crusades, but it is a definite conflict, head on conflict for Islam. Because you see, Jay, how much was the, in France, when there was a cartoon depicting Muhammad, there was a furrow of anger and heart sentiments. I mean, it's on a daily basis that there are jokes about Jesus, there are jokes about gods, there are jokes about Hindu gods. But we let it be. You can't hold on to one thing and magnify the whole thing, amplify the whole thing to such a point that you trigger the violent aspect of a person. How much tolerance a person of a religion has if there's a survey made on it. I think the least one, the least what is the tolerance aspect will go to a single religion, isn't it? We see it's a very big point. That's not going to work, because everybody talks about spirituality and communing with the God that you have chosen and all that. But everybody has a different view of that. And when you start really looking at it carefully and say, Jesus, some of these religions, they are sincere or they allow sincerity and that you can individually commune with the God that you believe in. But when you start saying, well, okay, 100 million people, they all think the same way. They all commune the same way. It's when you get organized and when you politicize and when you weaponize religion, all of a sudden you're marginalizing the notion of an individual communing with God or whatever God you choose. I don't know the solution, but it seems to me, and I wanted to run this by you, it seems to me that, A, we should not ever politicize or weaponize religion. B, we should not tell anybody else how to practice religion. And the only rule should be is you can practice whatever religion you want. Just don't step on my religion. Exactly. Yeah, yeah, correct. Never be apologetic about your religious beliefs, but don't trouble the person who's practicing his religious beliefs. So that's the whole crux of religion, isn't it? Well, the problem is if I say, hey, my religion prohibits abortion, I don't want to see fetuses killed and it really troubles me that you're killing fetuses, then you're, A, you're imposing one religious system on another. That's clear. And so the question is, what kinds of things? I mean, if you could probably have a religion that believed in human sacrifice. And through the ages, there have indeed. There have been, there have been, yeah. So somebody's got to say, no, no, no, that is not a legitimate cause or activity for religion, because that, you know, that, that kills people. You can't do that. Yeah, that's where I get stuck on it. So, you know, but, but the model that I, I want to suggest to you is that we just don't allow it to cross the line. Whatever you want to do, do it, as long as it doesn't affect anybody outside of your, your camp. And we have to have a line because in truth, some religions, I'll go on record here, some religions are more violent than others. Some religions cross the line. Some religions are really not sincere religions because they dwell in the, in the world of politics and weaponization and not in the world of personal communing with a deity. So they're different. Yes, right. Absolutely, right. This is, this is religion cannot be used to hurt humanity. Religion has to be used to uplift humanity. The moment you use it as a tool to further your personal political goals. And just as I mean, Islam was the only religion was spread by the sword. Christianity spread with the missionaries. There's a big difference. You convert or you die. You convert by I telling you how good my God is, is to different things. So when you have this kind of religion, which continues after 911, we still have so many heavens of funding. And all, all terrorists are not Islamic, but all, you know, it's, it's, it's a arguable point. So we have to dwell in the point that religion cannot be used to fund terrorism. It's not a logical point because we live in a interconnected world. Funding done in one place can affect building 911 towers in New York. So you see where the funding went. The trail is so long. You have to understand that under the guise of religion, they can't propagate terrorist activities. But you know, if you look today, you find one religion fighting with another, killing large numbers of people. You find these strange examples of anti-Semitism are around the country. You know, bigotry in full form. You find that really silly case in Hamlin College. You know, and if we did take a tour around the world from country to country, you would find very irrational, unenlightened things happen. I mean, you could say that there was emperor worship in Japan during World War II. And that was a big factor in their imperial approach to things and so forth. So, you know, I'm going back to the United Nations now. I think that somebody ought to say something about this. Somebody would say we don't want to have people hurting each other in the name of religion. Can't do that anymore. Somebody, maybe Guterres could say that. Somebody, the secretary general, the security council, I don't know, somebody. I don't think it's going to be the United States because we really haven't solved the problem at all. We have plenty of bigotry and hatred and religious discrimination in this country. And frankly, I don't think it's getting better. It's not more enlightened than it was, say, 20 years ago. And so, I'm thinking that there has to be a world organization that at least makes a statement about this and agrees with you and me about the limitations. What do you think? Jay, United Nations is the sole intergovernmental organization. And we have so many intergovernmental organizations and 200 plus countries. They still do not have a definition of terrorism. So that becomes such a starting point to start on. I mean, how can you not have a definition for terrorism, which is killing millions around the world, which is showcasing one religion in bad light? I mean, we have so many things which need to be sorted first. The moment they sort out this limitation that you can't do this in the, you can't kill people, the religion will automatically fall into place. But if you don't give them any guidelines, it's like a religion, isn't it, itself, that if you don't give guidelines, how do you know what to follow? How do you know the procedures, what to do? How do you know which festivals to follow? How do you know which gods to worship? What is the way of worship? What is the means of worship? If you're not given guidelines, the political system has not set a guideline for terrorist activities in religion. So we have terrorism under the guise of terrorism. Yeah, yeah. And let's look at Ukraine for a moment. Okay. Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has co-opted the Coptic, sound like a tongue twister, co-opted the Coptic Church. Yes. He's got this bishop who repeats everything he says. And there's a lot of people in Russia who they buy into not only the propaganda on the television, on Russian television, which is really sad the way they buy into that, but they also buy into the religious support coming from the church, coming from the church that Vladimir Putin effectively owns and justifying the war against Ukraine that way. So he has manipulated not only on the basis of television propaganda, but on the basis of religious propaganda and caused the Russian people to engage in a war that's completely immoral. So, I mean, I'm very troubled when churches capitulate like that. And there have been a number of stories about how the popes during World War II were complicit with Hitler or stood aside and let Hitler kill six million Jews. And that was something they could have and should have stopped or at least spoke out against. These very senior religious officials are compromised. And I don't know what you do about that, but that is something that should not happen ever, but does happen. And there was really no promise that it will not happen again in the future. True. The moment he came into war he brought in religion also against Jews. So, you know, this is a tactic used by leaders when they want to bring in jingoism in the population. They want to bring in that they want to hurt or trigger that religious sentiment with which they can say, hey, they will hurt our religion and we need to come together and we need, when you harm the other religion, your religion loses its value, its virtue. So, that kind of, I told you first line that when religion is used in politics, it becomes strong. Yeah. Well, let me go to one other area before we close and that is India. India, I assume you're familiar with all the diversity of religions in India, all kinds of, you know, Indian religions. And at least to the outside observer, they seem to get along and the Indian government doesn't tolerate a whole lot of violence between them. But can you describe how it works in India with all those, you know, various religions? See, just like in America, we do not use the word secular in our constitution. We have two religions, main religions, Hinduism and Islam. But Hinduism was in India's religion and Islam came from outside through the invaders of, you know, Muslims and Mughals and all these people came from outside. So, when they entered the territory, they broke the temples of Indian gods. Now the birthplaces of Indian gods and the same places are only one. When they destroyed that, they hurt the sentiments of the Hindu people. But after a period of time, when you realize that now everything is gone and it's a sacred place and the Hindus demand their birthplaces back, the Muslims say no, we will not give it because it's, there's no connection between your Mughal invaders and the Indian citizens. But there is a connection between the Hindu people and their gods birthplace. That is when the conflict arises. When the converted Muslims favor the invaders over the Hindu customs and religions, they say that was theirs and what was before is denied. That is when the conflict between Hindu Muslim arises. So, the Supreme Court, the apex court in India ruled that there can be no two birthplaces. Just like there's a birthplace for Muhammad of Islam, there is a birthplace of Lord Rama in Hinduism. So, birthplace cannot be changed and you need to give that place back. So, that's how we have got the Ayodhya coming, temple coming up in 2024. Interesting, interesting. Every democracy has to wrestle with this because democracies should allow for diversity. It's the strength of democracies. Both democracies don't have a secular treatment than J. Both democracies. So, what do we do here? Because it seems to me increasingly, this is a problem in a lot of places and increasingly political leaders as they move to the right, as they move to the right, they take advantage of this as a way to leverage power. How do we deal with that? I guess one way is to go and say to a senior religious official, hey, stay out of government. That's your mission in life. That's your mission to your people, your religion, you stay out of government and hopefully they will agree, but they may not. After 9-11, the call was that people in high positions of religion please come out and give statements condemning the violence done in the name of religion. These religious figures, they were called upon, come out and speak for your religion. Very few came in front. It's true. You have to propagate your tolerance, isn't it? So, how can I get your book, Rootbody? I really want to take a look at it. I'm posting it. Is it on Amazon? Yeah, it's on Amazon, it's on Amazon. And it suggests that it's more than just spirituality and religion, it's also psychology. And psychology, if you will, is a science. And so that raises the whole question of, is science a kind of religion? I mean, in the experience of human enlightenment, there was always a value on science. And I think people, including a lot of people I know, treat science as a kind of way to understand the universe, a way to appreciate their relationship with the natural world and therefore it becomes a kind of religion, doesn't it? Absolutely right, Jay. Absolutely right. Science is kind of a superpower, isn't it? In religion, we believe in the superpower. Science tries to explain logic to the superpower. So why not, Jay? I mean, sciences cannot be underestimated. You get to know what is cosmic, what is happening, why is it happening? So finding out the why and why not in science is acceptable as a religion, very much acceptable as a religion, because a superpower is a superpower. And how you pray to the superpower, how you find out the superpower is valid in both. In religion, you accept the superpower. In science, you find out the superpower. What makes this happen? Yes, it's a matter of questions. It's a matter of questions about your relationship with the natural world. It's about questions about yourself. It's getting answers to questions and religion can provide those answers. I know clergymen can provide those answers, but so can science. And maybe the answer, I don't know if we can ever really find an answer to this, because it's a problem that ain't going away. But maybe the answer is a kind of combination of looking and respecting science and looking and respecting religion and looking and respecting other religions so that you don't get into controversies with them. Well, so where do I get you book? Is it on Amazon? Where is it? It's on Amazon. It's an answer. It's on Amazon. It's on all the, it's Google it. Yeah, it's on. I'm posting this. One of our favorite, favorite guests. Here's the book again. You can find it. Take a look at it. And we'll have further discussions in a few weeks. Thank you, Root Money. Root Money came to the car. Thank you so much. My pleasure. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.