Religion and Dogma

[Spectre]

Yes there are morals in loot, plunder, holy war cutting parts of baby penises, practice of Sati..??
Sorry but you are sounding like a zakir naik type brainless tape recorder!

Yes and No.

Morals are not in those misdeeds but in charity, brotherhood, love, justice, compassion for the weak but religion as you have said has dogmas used to justify loot, plunder, holy war, cutting genitalia, sati etc

What you have said is the entire purpose of the thread. How to make religion free of the lacunas which exist. To ponder if that is even possible? Now many would say that their religion has no flaws as the divine is perfect but I am not one of them.

P.S. Hold off on the personal attacks. I do not want this thread to go in that direction so would really appreciate if we can all be civil here.

brother as long as a person has fear,,,inducing desired morality isnt too difficult,,,,,now fear may be of god,aftrlife,religion,law or somthng else

Laws were not derived by atheists but are founded on religious principles. Even today we take the hold to uphold the law on holy book in many countries - Why is that?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@Spectre

I believe that the Most disruptive development Globally has been the emergence of the
LGBT Community -- Lesbians ; Gays ; Bisexuals ; Transgenders

These people had been pushed underground but their presence and acceptance
is still a Religious Dogma and Taboo for most of the world

Laws were not derived by atheists but are founded on religious principles. Even today we take the hold to uphold the law on holy book in many countries - Why is that?

That is because Religion gave birth to Morality which led to development of Legal principles

 

[Pakistani E]

The real question is of tolerance. One doesn't need to disregard ones own religion to have respect and tolerance for others. I mean as a Muslim, Shirk or polytheism is the greatest sin a human being can commit, but does this mean that I have the right to take another's life because they worship idols? No, nothing that I have ever been taught or studied has ever led me to believe that merely practising a different opinion to that of the Islamic thougt renders one worthy of death or persecution.

We find in the Holy Qur'an:

“There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256)

"Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed.” (Surat al-Ma’ida, 48)

“Indeed, (O Muhammad), you do not guide whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. (Quran, Surah Qasas, Verse 56)”

“Not for you (O Muhammad (S), but for Allah) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them…” (Quran, Surah Aal-e-Imran:128).

“If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” (Quran 10:99)

"But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in God’s sight are all of His servants.” (Quran 3:20)

“The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the Message.” (Quran 5:99)

"O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one's] faith. And whoever does not repent - then it is those who are the wrongdoers. " (Qur'an 49:11)

“The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe and let him who please disbelieve” ( Qur'an18:29).

Any man who professes to be a muslim should forget what he believes himself about respecting others, if he is truly a muslim he should accept the word of God. And the Holy Qu'ran is the direct word of God. So as far as your first question is concerned, it is clear that at least there is to be no compulsion in this regard. But perhaps the real concern is, how does one stop another Muslim from going against these commandments.

In this regard, it is really not possible to merely preach to the congregation these beliefs, if a person or a group is set out on its path of destruction, and after repeated calls for transformation and abandonment of violence, they do not do so, it is the duty of the state to intervene and provide security and peace to its populace. With all due respect, the questions you have asked cannot really be addressed from a religious specific point of view. It requires inputs from the society as a whole.

For example, as a individual citizen, I cannot go out and physically oppose those Muslims who have gone to ignore the teachings I have presented. Even after I have debated them and told them they are wrong to kill those who have different beliefs, what more can I do apart from informing the relevant authority about their activities.


Other points to follow...

 

[SQ8]

A couple of quick thoughts on the implications of culling Dogma versus identifying what is Dogma and what is interpretation.
For Islam for e.g Dogma is that there is a single god whom Muslims refer to as Allah( it does not say that he has no other name) and that Prophet Mohammad was his last messenger. This Dogma would without an iota of doubt have any Muslim denying any further claims of prophethood and otherwise(w.r.t to the Qadiyani belief although this is often unclear)

- Do you believe that your religion allows for other faiths to be practiced without censure and with tolerance
There are clear cut instructions in the Quran to not stop other religions from practicing, to not harm their places of worship and to NOT EVEN RIDICULE their worship. I can post the relevant portions of scripture if wanted.Why that does not always happen is to be explained in the next statement.

- Do you believe religion should be static or it should reform itself to adapt with modern sensibilities
We must first define Faith and Religion since the foundations of belief lie in Faith whereas religion highlights a path to attain it. Faith is belief in Ishwar is an existential concept, religion is how you choose to interpret it. One say that this concept is incorrect and these are merely school of thoughts and that religion is in its entirety; but due to the definition of religion being fluid, I have chosen to interpret it as a particular school of thought referring to established scriptures of the faith.
In that sense, the schools of thought for many religions have evolved and changed over time. These have based their interpretations on what they believed were meant in the original but in line with their current times(or bias). The same way, we have interpretations that arose due to political bias ( such as those seen in Saudi Arabia) which may not be accurate for many others but define the religion for many.

Take the concept of infidel in Islam which is all based upon the Quran. The term infidel has been used specfically for those that deny the existence of a single god- this essentially takes all adherents of Abrahamic religions out of the mix who have already been specified with a term meant for them.
Yet, due to the concept of Trinity in modern Christianity; many can reinterpret them as being infidels based upon their personal bias. Is this interpretation accurate based upon the various repetitions and evidences in the Quran? Not in my opinion but there are many who will cite other sources to disagree.
What that does tell you is that NO religion is static and is only an expression of the personality of the human that believes in those basic articles of that particular faith. Religion can be in line with current events where a certain cleric or scholar can declare the Microphone a beneficial tool and it can be archaic where some may not. That has nothing to do with what the scriptures may or may not discuss, but more so with the personal belief.

The biggest issue with any religion is that most besides a few (Scientology for e.g.) are a millennia old if not older. That makes it difficult to judge a large percentage of scripture on authenticity. While many throughout the ages have tried to preserve the originality of many ancillary scriptures, the result is that a lot of these have errors and omissions that sometimes conflict or have no grounds in core texts.

Hence, the interpretation of these scriptures is also not static and is an ongoing and continuous process that is sometimes updated with the times or at times is left in the past due to previously mentioned personal beliefs.



- Does the required reform clash with founding principles of your religion
That depends on who is doing the reforming and their personal beliefs. At the least, certain Dogma cannot be violated. In Islam's case for e.g. The Quran is the source for all core Dogma and certain interpretations and meanings of it are concrete and universally accepted. The reforms cannot refute those without good evidence.

- If reforms are possible what would it entail and how do you suggest one begin
Focus on taking religion away from the clergy. Clergy has no place in modern religion and many faiths havent specifically mentioned clergy at all in their core texts. Hence, there is no need to give into the hijacking or ownership of religion to particular clerical cabals. Religion is a personal space to interpret and any social bonds it suggests or promotes much be decided by people well familiar with mass psychology and other studies of modern times instead of self declared clerics.


- How does one stop the misuse of religious dogma by terrorists to justify their action

One cannot. Simply because at the end, the power of human belief triumphs in many cases. After all,many have committed suicide upon some false prophet as recent as 2012. The best one can do is to combat such ideologies from spreading by aggressive censorship and promotion of more refined interpretation.

 

[Pakistani E]

A couple of quick thoughts on the implications of culling Dogma versus identifying what is Dogma and what is interpretation.
For Islam for e.g Dogma is that there is a single god whom Muslims refer to as Allah( it does not say that he has no other name) and that Prophet Mohammad was his last messenger. This Dogma would without an iota of doubt have any Muslim denying any further claims of prophethood and otherwise(w.r.t to the Qadiyani belief although this is often unclear)

- Do you believe that your religion allows for other faiths to be practiced without censure and with tolerance
There are clear cut instructions in the Quran to not stop other religions from practicing, to not harm their places of worship and to NOT EVEN RIDICULE their worship. I can post the relevant portions of scripture if wanted.Why that does not always happen is to be explained in the next statement.

- Do you believe religion should be static or it should reform itself to adapt with modern sensibilities
We must first define Faith and Religion since the foundations of belief lie in Faith whereas religion highlights a path to attain it. Faith is belief in Ishwar is an existential concept, religion is how you choose to interpret it. One say that this concept is incorrect and these are merely school of thoughts and that religion is in its entirety; but due to the definition of religion being fluid, I have chosen to interpret it as a particular school of thought referring to established scriptures of the faith.
In that sense, the schools of thought for many religions have evolved and changed over time. These have based their interpretations on what they believed were meant in the original but in line with their current times(or bias). The same way, we have interpretations that arose due to political bias ( such as those seen in Saudi Arabia) which may not be accurate for many others but define the religion for many.

Take the concept of infidel in Islam which is all based upon the Quran. The term infidel has been used specfically for those that deny the existence of a single god- this essentially takes all adherents of Abrahamic religions out of the mix who have already been specified with a term meant for them.
Yet, due to the concept of Trinity in modern Christianity; many can reinterpret them as being infidels based upon their personal bias. Is this interpretation accurate based upon the various repetitions and evidences in the Quran? Not in my opinion but there are many who will cite other sources to disagree.
What that does tell you is that NO religion is static and is only an expression of the personality of the human that believes in those basic articles of that particular faith. Religion can be in line with current events where a certain cleric or scholar can declare the Microphone a beneficial tool and it can be archaic where some may not. That has nothing to do with what the scriptures may or may not discuss, but more so with the personal belief.

The biggest issue with any religion is that most besides a few (Scientology for e.g.) are a millennia old if not older. That makes it difficult to judge a large percentage of scripture on authenticity. While many throughout the ages have tried to preserve the originality of many ancillary scriptures, the result is that a lot of these have errors and omissions that sometimes conflict or have no grounds in core texts.

Hence, the interpretation of these scriptures is also not static and is an ongoing and continuous process that is sometimes updated with the times or at times is left in the past due to previously mentioned personal beliefs.



- Does the required reform clash with founding principles of your religion
That depends on who is doing the reforming and their personal beliefs. At the least, certain Dogma cannot be violated. In Islam's case for e.g. The Quran is the source for all core Dogma and certain interpretations and meanings of it are concrete and universally accepted. The reforms cannot refute those without good evidence.

- If reforms are possible what would it entail and how do you suggest one begin
Focus on taking religion away from the clergy. Clergy has no place in modern religion and many faiths havent specifically mentioned clergy at all in their core texts. Hence, there is no need to give into the hijacking or ownership of religion to particular clerical cabals. Religion is a personal space to interpret and any social bonds it suggests or promotes much be decided by people well familiar with mass psychology and other studies of modern times instead of self declared clerics.


- How does one stop the misuse of religious dogma by terrorists to justify their action

One cannot. Simply because at the end, the power of human belief triumphs in many cases. After all,many have committed suicide upon some false prophet as recent as 2012. The best one can do is to combat such ideologies from spreading by aggressive censorship and promotion of more refined interpretation.

Yep, agree 100%. Don't think I need to write more.

 

[Spectre]

The real question is of tolerance. One doesn't need to disregard ones own religion to have respect and tolerance for others. I mean as a Muslim, Shirk or polytheism is the greatest sin a human being can commit, but does this mean that I have the right to take another's life because they worship idols? No, nothing that I have ever been taught or studied has ever led me to believe that merely practising a different opinion to that of the Islamic thougt renders one worthy of death or persecution.

We find in the Holy Qur'an:

“There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256)

"Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed.” (Surat al-Ma’ida, 48)

“Indeed, (O Muhammad), you do not guide whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. (Quran, Surah Qasas, Verse 56)”

“Not for you (O Muhammad (S), but for Allah) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them…” (Quran, Surah Aal-e-Imran:128).

“If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” (Quran 10:99)

"But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in God’s sight are all of His servants.” (Quran 3:20)

“The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the Message.” (Quran 5:99)

"O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one's] faith. And whoever does not repent - then it is those who are the wrongdoers. " (Qur'an 49:11)

“The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe and let him who please disbelieve” ( Qur'an18:29).

Any man who professes to be a muslim should forget what he believes himself about respecting others, if he is truly a muslim he should accept the word of God. And the Holy Qu'ran is the direct word of God. So as far as your first question is concerned, it is clear that at least there is to be no compulsion in this regard. But perhaps the real concern is, how does one stop another Muslim from going against these commandments.

In this regard, it is really not possible to merely preach to the congregation these beliefs, if a person or a group is set out on its path of destruction, and after repeated calls for transformation and abandonment of violence, they do not do so, it is the duty of the state to intervene and provide security and peace to its populace. With all due respect, the questions you have asked cannot really be addressed from a religious specific point of view. It requires inputs from the society as a whole.

For example, as a individual citizen, I cannot go out and physically oppose those Muslims who have gone to ignore the teachings I have presented. Even after I have debated them and told them they are wrong, what more can I do apart from informing the relevant authority about their activities.


Other points to follow...

Very well said. However even if you present 1000s of lines from holy book telling others about the tolerance preached still down the line someone would interpret one passage or other differently use it for nefarious end. Religions is a often guideline and not some rulebook guiding your path with clear-cut directions in each and every situation you might face in life. That is my belief.

I do not know enough about Islam and religious arguments used by the terrorist but there must be the something which guides their thought process? May be their handlers using lies, may be some-out of context quote?

What happens is many a times people take dogma which in this case might be monotheism to mean practitioners of polytheism should be eradicated or at-least discriminated against. There should be unanimous voice from Islam similar to yours saying such is not the case however we find a lot of division within Islam itself with some supporting the said discrimination thus giving the terrorists a bone to chew on.

A truly tolerant society would automatically be a secular society.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

A truly tolerant society would automatically be a secular society.

That depends on the Majority of the people in ANY country or society

Their attitudes ; beliefs ; outlook and principles

 

[ranjeet]

@Oscar @WebMaster @waz @WAJsal

Please close this thread if the discussion on the captioned topic is against forum policies. I am skirting the line here but hope the debate is constructive and add somes perspective to muddled thought process many of us have.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

We have all been appalled by the acts of terrorism, murder, rape, genocide etc committed in the name of religion. No religion is untouched by the crimes committed by their practitioners in it's name. We have had Paedophile priests, Islamic terrorists and Hindu genocidal mobs in times we live in.

All this perhaps creates a situation that the it is not the religion which defines it's followers but often followers defining their religion. So the goodness of Islam is warped by a fraction of misguided adherents, plurality and inclusivism of Hinduism lay forgotten because of it's demagogic leaders and Kindness of Christianity is undone by zealousness and cruelty of it's practitioners.

The good is so overshadowed by evil that we forget about the likes of Gandhis and Mother Teresa both @Devout practitioners. We forget that the noblest deeds, the most virtuous efforts in Human History have also been made in the name of religion.

At this stage one is forced to ask - What is it about religion that it inspires such cruelty as well as such kindness? How can the same fount of religion can be used to justify terrorism as well as altruism

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dogma - A critique

All religions at their core are Dogmatic. For those who don't understand what it means - Simplest example is that the Dogma is something you can't deny. For Islam it would the singularity of God, for Hindus it could be belief in reincarnation, for Christians it could be virginity of Mary.

The above are benign examples of Dogma but religion also contains certain dogmatic cores which brings one group in direct conflict with the other. A true Adherent of Islam can perhaps be in conflict with Ahmedis, A Vaishanvite can be in conflict with Shaivite, a Protestant with Catholic. These are just examples of internal conflicts. External ones have much greater scope.

It is the dogma which demagogues use to brainwash the terrorists like ISIS and Al-Quaeda - implying that it is word of the God that you wage Jihad on Non Muslims, It is the word of the God that you kill Shias. In Hinduism it was the dogma which led to centuries long oppression and exploitation of Dalits. Some Christians still use Christianity to justify slavery and racism.

Dogma based approach to religion is not about bettering oneself but following of rules and scriptures. It instills among the adherents the need to impose their version of truths on others. It creates an exclusivist mentality. It creates the need to prove others wrong to prove oneself right. In short Dogma may at sometimes lie in direct conflict with morality

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

The time has come to reform the static parts of the religious morality as the world cannot sustain itself much longer with all modern tools of destruction at hand which will be used if dogmatic beliefs of supremacy of one set of principles over others is to persist.

I am not a religious scholar - and the purpose of this thread is to not to deliver a lecture. PDF is fortunate enough to bring together people from all faiths and nationalities to a common platform. So I hope we can discuss if we can introduce enough flexibilities and leeway in the way religion is preached and practiced and may be take steps towards removing dogmatic principles which brings us in conflict.

Towards this end I will pose certain questions without malice for any religion

- Do you believe that your religion allows for other faiths to be practiced without censure and with tolerance

- Do you believe religion should be static or it should reform itself to adapt with modern sensibilities

- Does the required reform clash with founding principles of your religion

- If reforms are possible what would it entail and how do you suggest one begin

- How does one stop the misuse of religious dogma by terrorists to justify their action

@Joe Shearer @niaz @Levina @MarkusS @Chinese-Dragon

One question. Do you believe Mother Teresa held no dogmatic religious views?

 

[Spectre]

A couple of quick thoughts on the implications of culling Dogma versus identifying what is Dogma and what is interpretation.
For Islam for e.g Dogma is that there is a single god whom Muslims refer to as Allah( it does not say that he has no other name) and that Prophet Mohammad was his last messenger. This Dogma would without an iota of doubt have any Muslim denying any further claims of prophethood and otherwise(w.r.t to the Qadiyani belief although this is often unclear)

- Do you believe that your religion allows for other faiths to be practiced without censure and with tolerance
There are clear cut instructions in the Quran to not stop other religions from practicing, to not harm their places of worship and to NOT EVEN RIDICULE their worship. I can post the relevant portions of scripture if wanted.Why that does not always happen is to be explained in the next statement.

- Do you believe religion should be static or it should reform itself to adapt with modern sensibilities
We must first define Faith and Religion since the foundations of belief lie in Faith whereas religion highlights a path to attain it. Faith is belief in Ishwar is an existential concept, religion is how you choose to interpret it. One say that this concept is incorrect and these are merely school of thoughts and that religion is in its entirety; but due to the definition of religion being fluid, I have chosen to interpret it as a particular school of thought referring to established scriptures of the faith.
In that sense, the schools of thought for many religions have evolved and changed over time. These have based their interpretations on what they believed were meant in the original but in line with their current times(or bias). The same way, we have interpretations that arose due to political bias ( such as those seen in Saudi Arabia) which may not be accurate for many others but define the religion for many.

Take the concept of infidel in Islam which is all based upon the Quran. The term infidel has been used specfically for those that deny the existence of a single god- this essentially takes all adherents of Abrahamic religions out of the mix who have already been specified with a term meant for them.
Yet, due to the concept of Trinity in modern Christianity; many can reinterpret them as being infidels based upon their personal bias. Is this interpretation accurate based upon the various repetitions and evidences in the Quran? Not in my opinion but there are many who will cite other sources to disagree.
What that does tell you is that NO religion is static and is only an expression of the personality of the human that believes in those basic articles of that particular faith. Religion can be in line with current events where a certain cleric or scholar can declare the Microphone a beneficial tool and it can be archaic where some may not. That has nothing to do with what the scriptures may or may not discuss, but more so with the personal belief.

The biggest issue with any religion is that most besides a few (Scientology for e.g.) are a millennia old if not older. That makes it difficult to judge a large percentage of scripture on authenticity. While many throughout the ages have tried to preserve the originality of many ancillary scriptures, the result is that a lot of these have errors and omissions that sometimes conflict or have no grounds in core texts.

Hence, the interpretation of these scriptures is also not static and is an ongoing and continuous process that is sometimes updated with the times or at times is left in the past due to previously mentioned personal beliefs.



- Does the required reform clash with founding principles of your religion
That depends on who is doing the reforming and their personal beliefs. At the least, certain Dogma cannot be violated. In Islam's case for e.g. The Quran is the source for all core Dogma and certain interpretations and meanings of it are concrete and universally accepted. The reforms cannot refute those without good evidence.

- If reforms are possible what would it entail and how do you suggest one begin
Focus on taking religion away from the clergy. Clergy has no place in modern religion and many faiths havent specifically mentioned clergy at all in their core texts. Hence, there is no need to give into the hijacking or ownership of religion to particular clerical cabals. Religion is a personal space to interpret and any social bonds it suggests or promotes much be decided by people well familiar with mass psychology and other studies of modern times instead of self declared clerics.


- How does one stop the misuse of religious dogma by terrorists to justify their action

One cannot. Simply because at the end, the power of human belief triumphs in many cases. After all,many have committed suicide upon some false prophet as recent as 2012. The best one can do is to combat such ideologies from spreading by aggressive censorship and promotion of more refined interpretation.

@Oscar truly a post to treasure. I hope you won't mind me using it -with due credit of-course in other media for dissemination in FAQ form. I am sure lot of people including my Hindutva friends would benefit from a read.

One question. Do you believe Mother Teresa held no dogmatic religious views?

She certainly did. Infact she was one of the most dogmatic Christians I have had the pleasure of meeting. However Dogma by itself is not good of bad. The problem is that in semi-ignorant or nefarious hands, it can be used to do lot of evil.

So while I would trust somelike @Oscar to disseminate dogma with proper context, I cannot say the same for Hafiz Saeed

That depends on the Majority of the people in ANY country or society

Their attitudes ; beliefs ; outlook and principles

No, in a tolerant society, majority is irrelevant as tolerance would imply equality and equality would do away with numbers.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

No, in a tolerant society, majority is irrelevant as tolerance would imply equality and equality would do away with numbers.

And what is the ORIGIN of tolerance ;

Who or what determines whether a society is tolerant
or dogmatic or broadminded .

 

[Spectre]

And what is the ORIGIN of tolerance ;

Who or what determines whether a society is tolerant
or dogmatic or broadminded .

Again a very simple answer - no interference in practices and belief systems of others as long as it does not directly cause you physical distress.

 

[halupridol]

Laws were not derived by atheists but are founded on religious principles. Even today we take the hold to uphold the law on holy book in many countries - Why is that?

umm principles ??,,,,such as,,,,,,do this othrwise u fkd,,,,,,,,,,, or dont u do that othrwise u r gonna get it bad.(fear/reward)
the so called religious principles r also based on fear,,,one of the most basic of instincts yet a grt motivator

 

[SQ8]

umm principles ??,,,,such as,,,,,,do this othrwise u fkd,,,,,,,,,,, or dont u do that othrwise u r gonna get it bad.(fear/reward)
the so called religious principles r also based on fear,,,one of the most basic of instincts yet a grt motivator

That is also a personal belief. One could also give a PoV that religious principles are based on love and reward. What you just said is a clear example of personal belief defining a topic and not necessarily a right or wrong one.

 

[Spectre]

umm principles ??,,,,such as,,,,,,do this othrwise u fkd,,,,,,,,,,, or dont u do that othrwise u r gonna get it bad.(fear/reward)
the so called religious principles r also based on fear,,,one of the most basic of instincts yet a grt motivator

Correct. However origins of psychological fear and religion are intertwined. The promise of future pain and mitigation of it in form of prayers essentially gave birth to earliest of pagan rituals like worshipping nature gods such as rain, trees, thunder, lightening, earth etc.

 

[halupridol]

That is also a personal belief. One could also give a PoV that religious principles are based on love and reward. What you just said is a clear example of personal belief defining a topic and not necessarily a right or wrong one.

well,,,dear one can twist it any way he wants to,,,,but facts remain.
fear is the motivator alongwith supposed reward/punishment