Happy Thaipusam to one and all.

First things first - on the way home from Genting yesterday (an interesting day trip which would make a funny blog entry in and of itself if I was so inclined), we drove past Batu Caves, where the Thaipusam ceremonies were being conducted. We had cleverly avoided that road on the way up, knowing that traffic would be horrible, but on the way down, we were slightly high from air pressure changes and the euphoria of finally being able to see more than 10m ahead once we dropped closer to sea level (think Mists of Ravenloft type driving conditions while we were up there). It was almost midnight, and we thought that the highway past Batu Caves should be clear. HOW WRONG WE WERE! Think Armies of Darkness - all around us - and in a three-lane highway, the lanes on left and right were choked with parked cars and motorcycles for about 1.5km. And imagine the resultant bottleneck in which we were trapped for 2 hours.

In the midst of exhaustion and raw frustration at being stuck, a few brief moments of humour were attained. Notably due to the six FRU vans (Special Response Unit aka SWAT) stationed there. As my friend put it: "What are they afraid of? Kavadi-bearers running amok?"

(For the culturally ignorant: kavadis are the metal harness thingies with needles that Thaipusam celebrants stick all over their body. Think Hellraiser with Indians.)

NOW THAT IS A SCARY THOUGHT. I can just see the headlines: "Psychotic kavadi-bearers run riot though the city! Blood flows in the streets!"

Once again, I am terribly misrepresented - I'm not displeased or pleased that Gabriel has seen fit to conclude the debate. In my exact words at the time: "Okay lor. Now run along - I have to finish watching the Fellowship of the Ring DVD (the 4-DVD special extended edition)"

In fact, I thought it was a dead issue, which makes me surprised that he mentioned it again below. Please tell the nice people what I told you about the wimpy excuse of "living/evolving religions" and fundamentalism. I dislike such provocation, man.

To sum up:

a) The documentary evidence is what the founders of a religion explicitly wanted. It usually requires a lot of ridiculous practices in today's modern context. I don't have any creative interpretations about them whatsoever. Which is why I respect fundamentalism in a twisted way - they're the only ones with the courage to stick to their founder's intentions. The soft liberal religious are just trying to have their cake and eat it, from a salvation point of view.

b) My argument simply states that ALL religions have absurd practices, only that you focus excessively on Islam's ones, and that they're all as equally hokey as one another. My issue with your debating technique is that you have serious fallacy of composition issues, as well as a very one-sided presentation. THAT'S IT.