₦airaland Forum

^^^

1. If extreme ideas are avoided, is it harmful to raise your child a christian or muslim?

2. If you had a spouse who insisted on raising the kids in line with her religious affiliation - say, christian, for example, what would you do?

^^ Thank you, and I so much agree!

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=800637.msg9991411#msg9991411 date=1326885817]@DeepSight. I have some few comments to make on your post.

Why worry about the religious or spiritual view that you will bring up your children? Your duty as a parent is to demonstrate through your actions, words, thoughts, motives, imagination and intuition that you live in the sense of the laws of God. Humility, Love, compassion, honesty and similar things provides the greatest enlightenment to a child more than any treatise on spiritual or religious matters.[/quote]My worry arose from the implications of the institution of marriage. As things are, a religious spouse will often be adamant on schooling his/ her children in the doctrines and dogma of his/ her religion. Indeed most religious spouses (at least in these climes) will mostly feel deeply disconnected on a certain level if their partner does not identify with their religious fellowship. I am all too aware that this has become a life-long sticking point in many marriages.

If the other spouse is non-religious, as is my case, he/ she may see no or little harm in permitting the religious spouse to bring up the children in his/ her religious institition/ teachings.

As you have said, what would count most would be the way of life that is imparted by actually living aright as an example.

If you inwardly sense that going to church with your wife is the right thing, then you are doing the right thing but it will be wrong in my view if you are doing that just to please her and allow "peace" to reign. Compromises no matter how comfortable does not solve problems but only covers it and such problems will continually rear its head.

Hmmmmm. Conundrum.

It is a difficult issue. At the end of the day it seems to me that it is important to grant freedom to spouse and children all to toe the paths that they choose. So long as the foundation is and remains love of God and fellow man, one can surely be on the right course, without obstinately introducing a spirit of division into one's home.

Meddler:
Pls who wrote this letter? I can hardly understand the point he's getting across with all the grammatical errors. Please [size=20pt]seize [cease] and desist[/size] from writing anything for public viewing.

Grammatical errors?

Okay, let's start with yours above.

Finally, my views on this matter are best summrized by a post written by the wisest man on nairaland some time ago - M_Nwankwo. Here it is -

God is love. One can also say that God is the source of love. All creatures of God irrespective of race, religion, sex, nationality etc can absorb of this love of God and dispense it accordingly. In the case of human beings, what absorbs this love from God is the human spirit. This love will permeate the spirit, its clocks including the outermost shell, the physical body. Thus he who absorbs the rays of love will manifest love including love for all creations of God. Now, the recognition of this love as coming from God depends on the various radiation connection between the spirit and the various shells surrounding the spirit, the last shell being the physical body and its coordinating center, the human brain. In many of us, this radiation connections are not straight, thus the shells enveloping the spirit are not conscious of the impressions that vibrates in the spirit. Thus a man may believe himself to be an atheist because that is what his brain tells him and yet his spirit is in the recognition of God. Irrespective of his brain telling him that God does not exist, the emanations of the spirit including love still permeates his mind and body resulting in expressions of genuine love. Thus although from a human standpoint, such a man is considered by himself and others to be atheist, spiritually the man is a theist.

In a similar vein the brain and the mind may be trained or indoctrinated or programmed to believe in God but their spirit has no recognition of God. In this case, this believer is actually an atheist even though he believes himself to be a theist. However because he, that is, the spirit has no connection with God, he cannot absorb the rays of love and manifest it. Thus, in spite of his intellectual believe in God, he still manifests the works of the flesh including hatred, anger, lust, gossip, avarice, fear, etc. The species of a seed determines the fruits that it will bear. Thus all genuine love and human beings who indulge in it believe in God even when they are unconscious of it while on earth.

Thus, all human beings who indulge in genuine love are of God and all those who indulge in hatred are not of God. By there works or fruits, you shall know those who stand in the will of God and those that oppose it or do not recognize it. This is an infallible yardstick to know who belongs to God and those who are not.

Therefore the love of God manifests in the love of all creations of God. On earth, it is possible for an atheist to love God without being spiritually conscious of it. However if such atheist continues in the manifestation of the love of God, either later in this earthly life or in the beyond on in another earthly life the emanations of the love of God that vibrates in his spirit will also permeate his earthly brain such that he also becomes conscious of the existence of God while in the physical body. What counts is how our spirit is close or far away from the will of God. Religion, nationality, sex, class and similar things that we think are very important while on earth are worthless once we drop this physical body.

In my view, there is no difference between the pope, the Christian, the mystic or an atheists when it concerns the will of God. Murder is murder whether perpetrated by a pope, a theist or an atheist. Genuine love is genuine love whether it came from an atheist, a pastor or an agnostic. Sometimes we think too much and thus think nothing. If we look around even on earth, we should find that the natural laws which are the manifestation of the will of God in nature does not give a hoot about all these artificial constructs. If a bud-hist sows yam in a fertile soil, he will reap yam. The same goes for an atheist and the theist. In an earthquake or epidemic or accident, both theists and atheists are saved and killed. A deeper look on why these things are the way they are may open our eyes to the working of God. Best wishes.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-687376.0.html

plaetton:
No matter their outer pretences to foster love and harmony, any philosophy, religious or otherwise, that subconsciously sow the seeds of hatred, bigotry and disharmony, and aid to manifest same thereof, can never be deemed to be of any good value to humankind.
We hear that Islam is a religion of peace: where is the peace? We hear that christianity is about redemption and love: where is the love and where is the redemption?

Yes I agree with you especially on the note of the subconcious divisions that arise. I can only offer you a letter I wrote (by email) recently to the Pastors of a church I attended where i considered that a divisive message was preached. Here it is -

Dear Pastors at [name of church withheld]

I attended the service at your church on Sunday 11th September 2011 as a first-time visitor to your church. I came in for the 11 a.m. service and I would like to convey some feedback to you regarding the sermon delivered by your Pastor [name withheld].

I make this comments to you conscious of the role of the Church in every society as a bridge-building organization, an envoy of peace and bastion of charitable endeavors to all men.

I was rather disconcerted at what appeared to me to be the rather divisive tone of the sermon that was delivered on Sunday. But before I proceed any further, I need to make a few remarks on the place of varied religion within a society.

Now mankind consist of many different nations, cultures and tribes. Indeed nothing could be more emblematic of human distinction than the element of diversity in all our various endeavors. We speak different languages and hold dear a great array of many differing cultural norms and ethos. Indeed the great beauty of the human family is best located within the context of the brilliant diversity that human culture represents. This is, to my mind, a compliment to the Almighty Creator.

The religious plane is indeed no different  - mankind have a staggering array of different religious histories which have defined their current religious and spiritual persuasions. And it is with respect to this particular matter of religious diversity that I found some of the comments of your Pastor [name withheld] during his sermon of Sunday 11 September 2011, rather disturbing. I thought it necessary to bring these to your attention especially within the context of the religious tension currently enveloping our country Nigeria, and indeed, the world.

My concern stemmed in the first instance from your Pastor [name withheld] incendiary remarks asserting the existence of some sort of “war” between the religion of Islam and Christianity. He had made allusion to the Jos Plateau as being the theatre of that war, and had drawn historical issues regarding same as far back as Uthman dan Fodio. He further conveyed his feeling that people born in Islamic countries are born into some sort of evil religion, or something of the sort.

Your Pastor further stretched his views and mentioned a host of other religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Hindusim, Zoroasterism and many others, and intimated the congregation, that these were all “evil and deceitful” religions, and that the huge percentage of humanity who subscribe to all of these religions, are all indeed lost people, who have been taken in by the “evil deceit” of these religions.

It is not my intention to discuss the merits or demerits of any religion, as I am aware (as no doubt you all are also aware) that people belonging to different faiths do have different ideas and different perceptions regarding the doctrines of other faiths. Indeed, it is my personal belief that it is most useful for each person, in the spirit of broad education, to acquaint himself with the essentials of other religions, even if only for the purpose of availing himself a bird’s eye view of other faiths – nonetheless, this is not the pith of that which I wish to comment upon.

What I do wish to comment upon is my strong belief that the church should foster unity, peace and tolerance amongst the broad human family.

It is my view that whereas we live in a world replete with terrorism and ethnic, cultural, racial and religious prejudice and suspicion, the church, being an envoy of God, and bride to the prince of peace, should be signal in the vanguard for universal human peace and brotherhood.

In this respect, we cannot overstate the importance of religious tolerance, especially within a multi-religious society like Nigeria. Any persons who preach a doctrine of divisiveness, or who advance ideas of religious prejudice certainly do not do the work of peace-making that is so integral to the idea of Jesus Christ, who it is known preached. . . “blessed are the peacemakers. . .”

Sirs, these are crucial things to note in these perilous times in which we live. The sermon delivered at your church on Sunday, to my mind, served better to fan the embers of religious antagonism and prejudice, than to advance the cause of peace and inter-religious brotherhood and solidarity, which are so desperately needed today, in an increasingly fractured world.

Needless to say, the importance of this cannot be over-stated in the Nigerian context, having regard to the fragile religious tension within the country today. It is my view that there must also be an element of responsible leadership, in discerning that which is appropriate content for a public sermon, and that which is not.

Now, my consternation reached a peak, when your Pastor [name withheld] went further to refer to the current Dalai Lama as an evil practitioner of deceit, and inferred that far from the internationally recognized status of the Dalai Lama as a universal proponent of peace, he is in fact a disguise for the propagation of a devilish religion.

Sirs, I was dumbfounded.

And this on two scores. In the first place, the Dalai Lama, as I said, is a universally acknowledged spiritual leader whose cause has been the propagation of peace and human brotherhood. The Dalai Lama has done so much work in this regard that his recognition on this score cannot be ignored. But my astonishment was not limited to this fact alone. I was more astonished that a spiritual leader of another religion could be so described by your Pastor in public, in his sermon.

I dare say that this is a divisive approach and certainly not a peace-building and unifying approach.

Beyond the foregoing, what struck me most was the underlying sentiment of (your as well as the proponents of) every religion, that – “Every other religion is evil and wrong, and mine is good and right”. Although I do not seek to pick a quarrel with this belief, (as all remain entitled to their beliefs), what I do believe, is that irrespective of such beliefs, it is incumbent upon religious leaders (including your selves) to display a level of restraint in commenting on such matters which cast the adherents of every other religion in such an eminently negative or even evil perspective.

I strongly believe that evangelism is possible without the tendency to “demonize” the religions of other people, as such an approach is insensitive to the cherished faiths of other people, whereas as responsible leaders, we have a duty to build, and not break bridges, a duty to unify and not divide, a duty to propagate peace, and not sow the seeds of discord and war.

Let me close my comments by assuring you that I do not take umbrage at your faith, nor do I seek to advise you not to evangelize your faith: by all and every means do so – I merely seek to draw your attention to the fact that it is more prudent, and indeed more responsible, as leaders within a heterogeneous society, to lend respect to one another in inter-faith matters, and thereby build bridges of peace, tolerance and unity amongst all people, for, as we all know, intolerance and fanaticism are the wellsprings of that very societal discord which we battle in Nigeria today.

May God bless you as you do so.

plaetton:
@Deapsight:
Your ideals are very admirable and reflect the core essence of what most non-religious people like myself hold very dear and aspire to.
You are obviously an idealist, an optimist who have strong faith in the innate human capacity for good. I am too, and that has, at most times, proved to be a weakness . But its my nature, so I live with it.

As I have wriiten before, in an ideal society that we find in many advanced countries, one person's religious belief does not pose a problem or threat to another. I grew up and spent most of my adult life in such a society. I befriended and mingled with people from virtually all cultures and religions, and in the process have gained so much understanding about cultures, history and religion. In all that time, I had never felt theatened culturally or physically by the religious beliefs of anyone ,nor, was I ever considered a threat to the beliefs of anyone.
Under this type environment, your posture is ideal. Infact, it is the only one.

I entirely understand you my brother.

Now back to Nigeria, it's a totally different scenario. Whether you like it or not, the religious beliefs of other must impinge on your rights, your freedoms, your peace of mind , sometimes on your wallet, and even threaten your right to live( Boko haram is one example).

This is very true.

What I have found however is that there are different possible approaches to take in the face of such religious “intimidation” of one’s life – and having been a most militant anti-religionist for many years, I can safely assure you that the militant approach delivers no dividend whatsoever to either side of the divide.

You may wish to (if you have a few minutes) scroll over some of my past posts on this forum and you will glean a little of the terrible extent to which I have been militantly opposed to the vast majority of religious (especially Judeo-Christian) dogma in the past. You may thus have a sense of what I say when I state that I speak from experience – and my arguments were by no means limited to this forum: I preached my views everywhere that I went with extra zest and ferocity.

I can assure you that both in the real world and in the online realm – it reaped me a great feast of irritation and even deep malice, from the very people whose minds I sought to change. The problem was not so much their rigid-mindedness, I think. The greater problem was my militant and mocking approach. Which, on reflection, was not mature or well considered.

Thus what I wish to convey is that in my personal experience, notwithstanding the extent to which one may consider some religious beliefs ridiculous, militancy and mockery or ridicule of such beliefs will seldom yield any tangible dividend. Rather such an approach often lionizes the adherents of such religions, drives them into the trenches and bestows them with a persecution-complex, from which they then believe that they must fight ever harder to defend their faith.

I am persuaded that the greater wisdom lies in a more subtle approach: whereby one may now and then drop little pieces of food for thought to the religious man – and leave such little seeds to germinate in the mind of the believer. If the soil is fertile, in other words, if that person has a probing and curious mind, an open and fertile mind, most likely, such little seeds will gradually prompt him out of the prison of his religious enclave.

If on the other hand the soil is as rigidly cast as hard desert iron, then neither a subtle approach nor a militant approach would deliver any use whatsoever – such a person should be left to saunter along peacefully with his dogma – and merely cautioned where there are excesses that impinge on the liberties and lifestyle of people of contrary belief or culture.

So you can hold on to your idealism and steadfast faith in the innate goodness of religious philisophies only for a short while. You may either decide to bury your face in the sand and pretend that all is well, play the proverbial monkey and see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing, or , you can point out the evils(proven) of religious philosophy and its incompatiblity with peace , harmony and progress. At this point it becomes absolutely necessary to ridicule and make carricature of religous lore and logic.

I do not agree that religious philosophies are innately evil or incompatible with harmony and peace: if anything, I believe the generality are innately good and directed towards harmony and peace. There are, no doubt, some religious ideas which are not innately good and such must no doubt be clearly condemned: but my advise would be that the proper way to condemn such would be simply to place them in careful context of the times at which such ideas were expressed and show that some of those ideas have no place in a modern and civilized world.

Case in mind, the recent slapgate of Oyedepo.I was somewhat dissapointed that you did not lend your voice to condemn the evil act perpetrated on a young innocent lass . The vicious attack on that girl and the many other evils perpetrated by such men have their roots on silly and erroneous religious beliefs in demons, witches and so on. And the poor and hepless always bear the brunt of these false religious beliefs.

Oh, I did extensively condemn that shameless barbaric act: only I did not do so on this forum – I doubt that I had much time to post at that time.

Therefore , there is no way you can isolate yourself, your family, your close relatives from all that madness. What do you do when your child is frieghtened by sunday school teacher by threats of hellfire and demonic possesion?

That really is a thought indeed. As I said to you before, one can only seek to guide the child aright. What this means is that one will carefully measure the sorts of messages that the child is exposed to. The small family church that I am at this time targeting for this purpose is very moderate and reasonable in its teachings. If at any time I sense exposure to harmful teachings it will be my responsibility to protect the child from such pollution of its mind by withdrawing him therefrom.

I do not have all the answers in this tricky and sensitive matter: if left to myself alone I would probably raise and teach the child myself without recourse to any such church whatsoever: however this is not a possibility currently in view of the very strong views of my partner. I cannot deny my partner the equal right to raise her child as she considers spiritually apt – especially where I can see little harm in such. All I can do is to moderate things as I have said – and at all events, such hocus pocus as eternal dungeons of torture are some of the easiest things that children readily grow out of if they are guided aright by a parent. Much the same way as the parent permits them to believe in Santa Claus for a while and also sees to it that they naturally grow out of such as time passes.

I just dont see how you can remain indifferent to the exploitations,disharmony and threat to life created by ridiculous religious beliefs.

Oh no, I am not indifferent: indeed I am very active against such: it’s just that I have discerned what I believe to be a better, more mature and more effective way to pass across one’s concerns.

I used to think that there were some good things to be found in most of the world's major religions. I no longer feel that way.

Of course there are.

dare2think:
Well articulated and understood.

The problem I have presently is that I just cant seem to ignore open hypocrisy.

I certainly feel the same way.

dare2think:
However, I still think people should address the 'ridiculous' nature of some religious  practices in order to enlighten the 'inbetweeners' that are still sitting on the fence.

Yes, but I am persuaded that this should be done with the greatest of care. If one realizes that many "ridiculous" beliefs are not necessarily harmful, one may be inclined to focus more on the love-element of each person's faith, as that is what is critical. If that element is strong enough within the believer, there is virtually no problem.

Bearing in mind that some religionist can not be changed. Examples of such  practices would be abuses penetrated on the vulnerable and those who don't have the capacity to raise objections. I.e children.

Although i agree with you, again, maximum care has to be excercised. In this instance let me briefly touch on the case of children.

I have often debated extensively with myself as to what spiritual/ religious world-view I would bring my children up in. This question disturbed me for many years. It was a particularly tricky question because the non-religious man in these climes will be very challenged to find a spouse that agrees with his views. They are as rare as the unicorn. Virtually all "wife-material" women in this society are deeply religious. 

Will the non-religious man therefore not marry. . . or die waiting for that elusive woman who agrees with his views? What if he genuinely loves a religious woman. Which happens to be the case in my instance.

I believe that wisdom lies in walking hand in hand with that person whom one loves. Even people of the same religion cannot always agree on every aspect of their faith. The critical aspect i believe, is sharing the philosophy and faith of love and goodwill to all men. I share this with the woman that I love: addittionaly we place trust in the will of God for our lives. I believe that this is more than enough for us to walk spiritually together. I have also concluded that so long as I perfectly understand my personal views and reservations, it also does not hurt to walk and grow together even in the context of a church. There is much that I do not agree with, but I see nothing to be gained from obstinate disputations therefrom. That will only lead  to a splintered family. I see far greater wisdom and equanimity in not only walking together spiritually with my family, but also lending every support therein.

Now, in all of this, my partner is fully aware of every letter and the full extent of my personal views.

Now, coming to children. As i said, i have contemplated this extensively. I have concluded that there is nothing to be gained by initiating little minds into possible confusion. They will have the benefit of the same upbringing that i did - they will attend a small family church and be raised in a christian context. This is not only in deferrence to my partner but also for two other reasons. One, the earliest spiritual questions that a child asks are best answered in the simple fashion that the religions lay out (God created man. . . etc) - and these answers in many cases are actually the truth in my view. Secondly the exploration of cosmological and more advanced spiritual truths is best left, in my view, to a more mature stage in the Child's life. A foundation in the church will make for simple stability, and i see little harm in it, if any - so long as the child is guided aright.

Now what is critical for me is that at every stage of growth i will impart certain basics to the child - such as my belief in non-discrimination, and my belief that the central message of Christ is love of God and love of fellowman. I will discourage the child from all forms of discrimination against other cultures and religions, and seek to assure him of the value of diversity in God's great creations.

As the child enteres adolescence, and further matures, I will, as God permits me, seek to engage his/ her mind further and further in an open and hopefully, enlightened direction.

I must still mention though, that as God and the world is, it may be me who will end up learning more from the child than the other way round.

Another danger of not talking against the ridiculousness would be the tragic case of the Jim Jones saga where mass suicide was seen by the victims as a 'reasonable' outcome.

Of course, such extremes should be overtly discouraged.

InesQor:
Deep Sight, you may have little or no idea how happy this post of yours makes me, regarding the change in your viewpoint

Regards

Bros how u dey now? Abeg let's play chess sooner rather than later, I am a sore loser and still eager to redeem my honour!

Well I never heard the comment. Can you quote him verbatim? Because if it's a question of a mere wish, then 80 per cent of Nigerians have committed treason in that regard already.

Men, sometimes the views expressed by these Jonathan sycophants are really off the charts for the prize in sycophantic ridicule.

oyb:
dude, what part of what i posted earlier dont u understand?

anything thing that can be deemed as opposition to saint jonathans earnest push towards the promised land of penury is treason

soon, it will be treason to laugh when patience fires us with her english

all hail emperor and dictator for life goodknock ebere johnathan

Pardon me. The Jonathan sycophants on this forum are quite simply out of this world. Perhaps they are all Beaf using multiple I.Ds

^^^ And wishing the president dead is treasonable? Are you sure everything is ok over there?

^ ^ ^ Sir, pardon me - accusations regarding collaboration with IMF strategic goals amount to treason? Did i hear you correctly?

@ PointB -

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you either made a slip of the tongue, or there is some deeper meaning in your comment which I am too unintelligent to grasp. For this reason I have broken down your post into two quotes. Can you be so gracious as to attempt to reconcile them for me? Because they seem tragically sad and contradictory to me. Thanks.

PointB:
He has no cause to order the arrest of 'some' of those men.

That said, arresting them is no big deal.

Very doubtful that there will be a response on this one from Beaf, efisher, nchara, and the rest of the sycophantic pro government gang.

O come on David, from patriarchal chauvinism to a satanic plot against Jews and Christians? That has to be the grandmother of all conspiracy theories.

It would appear so. The bit about imagining him in a strategy session with okoonjo, lamido, diezani and co particularly strikes home. There is no way in heaven or hell he will be able to contradict a single word they say. They are so vastly superior to him in all things that he will have an inferiority complex. He might have some questions for them but will keep mute for fear of looking dumb. He cannot go toe to toe in a debate. It should have been obvious from the moment he disgracefully ran away from the presidential debate last year. Watching Beaf defend that one was nauseating. I almost threw up.

I am so tired of this ridiculous argument regarding smuggling.

1. It refers to government incompetence in dealing with smuggling as a whole

2. In the natural scheme of things, if the refineries were working as they should, PMS should indeed be cheaper in Nigeria than it's neighboring countries. Now if that were the case, in the event that it was naturally cheaper without any subsidy or importation, would the govt not STILL have to address smuggling? ? ?

3. What about smuggling of other products, aside from petrol? Will the government not still have to address such?

Good grief Jonathan?

^ Anybody who is aware of the history of Deep Sight on this board would surely accept the st.upidity of ridicule and attack as an instrument to open the mind of the religionist. You will reap nothing therefrom but bile and hatred.

I am today persuaded that the Deep Sight that spent hours on end shewing the ridiculous nature of some religious beliefs was a st.upid and immature Deep Sight. If God gives me the grace, I repent of such poverty of wisdom.

The only way to go, is to jointly walk together in love: expressing reservations where necessary, but not resorting to ridicule or mockery: indeed - we all retain some measure of this or that ridiculous belief anyway.

Most importantly I am now in full agreement with that which Plaetton said: there is no reason to presume the religionist in any way spiritually or intellectually inferior - people seek out spiritual peace in different ways. If anything, the religionists have indeed had a majority contribution to intellectual work and science throughout the ages.

If I do not see anything wrong in an ancient man's worship of a river or the sun, it is equally ridiculous for me to condemn the modern religionist. Both can easily remain of a highly spiritual and intellectual bent.

Aside from this, the essential ethos of the religions are praise worthy.

^ That is just it o.

The question thus is; what factors could have been so overwhelmingly different in 2011 - which factors did not operate in prior years - as to cause an increase from 240 billion to 1.3 trillion? ? ?

A Presidential Election, perhaps?

gabbytabby:
Deep sight, you will agree with me that this is a medium term 3-5 year plan

It is a medium term plan, and so long as you have the word "plan" in governmnet affairs, virtually everything should be medium or long term. You do not just wake up and implement sweeping measures: planning is critical. Planning is all the difference between the 1st world and the 3rd abi last world.

Now I must yet tell you that such a plan needn't take five years - NO! The last refinery built in Nigeria was built in the 80s and it took just two years. Now if building could take just two years, then repair and mainternance can be done in a far shorter period if the government is serious.

The idea of the removal of the subsidy didnt creep up on 1 Jan 2012. It has been a clear plan of government for several years now. And yet government DID NOTHING to ensure that it is delivered in the sensible medium term plan manner above by dealing with the problems which led to the subsidy regime in the first place! Absolutely nothing. It therefore behoves government to get its act together and start NOW to implement a medium term plan that will deliver the removal in a proper and sensible fashion.

and while this is ongoing what needs to happen with the current situation on the ground? fold hands and wait for manner from heaven.

No: retaining the subsidy in the medium term will not bankrupt Nigeria so long as it is the real subsidy under 300 billion and not the magically corrupt subsidy of 1.3 Tr. For this reason, the bigger issue is to cut government wastage (which is more than ten times the cost of the real subsidy) and address corruption in the oil industry.

Let me just tell you something. Corruption is the core of the problem: If Nigeria receives one zillion dollars today from heaven or subsidy removal, be assured that that money will dissapear before your very eyes.

So corruption is what should be addressed.

^^^ There is a simple solution.

Fully Repair Refineries - - -> End PMS importations - - - > Remove all subsidies - - - > Privatize Refineries - - -> Fully deregulate and liberalize the downstream sector.

Simple Argument No 7 -

Madueke claims that the refineries are now at sixty per cent. Indeed!

If this is the case, then there should not be a subsidy paid on such refined crude.

Is there a subsidy on locally refined crude?

Is locally refined crude sold at a different price?

The Opening Post is a staggeringly shallow, false and fraudulent argumentation which misses the pith of the question regarding the 1.3 Trillion issue.

The issue is pretty simple but I am being forced to repeat it all over this board: There are various factors which determine the aggregate cost spent on the fuel subsidy - the critical point is that as long as the subsidy regime has existed - ALL of these factors have existed. The question therefore arises as to what exactly within these factors accounts for a five-fold increase within ONE YEAR ONLY - notwithstanding that the same factors were present in all previous years, but NEVER had such a staggering impact.

In the eight years preceding 2011, the subsidy has ALWAYS been financed well below 300 billion naira. Indeed to be exact, the amount budgeted for the subsidy in 2011 was 240 billion naira only.

Having operated the subsidy regime for several years already, the government of course had a clear idea as to the cost of the subsidy and such information would have been the basis for arriving at a budget of 240 billion for the subsidy within the 2011 budget. The question thus is; what factors could have been so overwhelmingly different in 2011 - which factors did not operate in prior years - as to cause an increase from 240 billion to 1.3 trillion? ? ?

Those factors CANNOT be any of the factors listed by the OP because ALL the factors listed by the OP operated in all prior years and only increase or decrease marginally year on year. For example, the OP says -

Why the change of subsidy value from previous years, the average crude price for last year was largely above $100/bl, coupled with exchange rate differentials and  increase in energy demand  due to population growth, GDP growth & increase in smuggled products across Nigerian borders.

In the foregoing the OP mentions average price of crude, foreign exchange differentials, increase in energy demand due to population growth, and increase in smuggled products across Nigerian borders as factors.

Let us look at these factors one at a time and see whether either any one of them or a combination of all of them could be responsible for the ridiculous rise in the cost of the subsidy in 2011. What we find is that these are out rightly st.upid excuses for the OP to proffer as responsible for the 2011 increase.

He mentioned the following factors  -

1. Average price of Crude: The average price of Crude Oil in 2010 and 2011 were not different to such a degree as to justify the assertions of the OP. The differentials observable can by no means account for any tangible increase across the year - much less an increase of over 1 trillion naira. In reality Oil has sold at over a 100 USD per barrel a different points within the last five years and at no time has it had anything even remotely close to this effect on the cost of the subsidy. To be more precise, the differential between 2010 and 2011 taken as an annual average does not exceed 12 – 15 per cent. Thus if this were actually true, it would at best increase the subsidy from 240 billion to a little less than 270 billion.

2. Foreign Exchange differentials: between 2010 and 2011, the naira did not fluctuate beyond 12 percent points of its value against the US Dollar. If we are to place this fluctuation against the value of the subsidy, it would have at best meant an increase in the cost by about 30 billion naira - thus a total cost of about 270 billion - still well below the 300 billion naira mark, and without the slightest hope of approaching anything even remotely resembling 1 trillion, not to speak of 1.3 TRILLION. Now even if we add the supposed crude oil price fluctuation, that would take us to about 310 billion naira only!

Thus even a combination of these excuses falls FAR short of any hope of a justification of the 1.3 trillion figure!

3. Increase in energy demand due to population growth: This is actually the most foolish factor advanced by the OP for many reasons.

- First and foremost, population growth did not commence in 2011. It has always been there. If any population growth affects the consumption, it occurs every year and represents a slight marginal increase at best. It can never account for a sudden increase of five fold because the population grows by a fraction only annually. So that is beyond preposterous.

- But in reality, the sheer foolishness of this statement is understood better when one realizes that population growth is represented by new babies. Gentlemen, babies don’t drive cars. And even if they did, why have the new babies who were driving cars every year prior to 2011 suddenly increased a thousand-million fold in 2011. This is ignorance, thoughtlessness and pure hilarity of reasoning at its height. It is so profoundly st.upid that it makes me understand why Nigerians regard Sanusi Lamido as a bright guy. Because Nigerians are very easily fooled by grammar and figures. This OP here is has advanced a hilariously da.ft argument and it is being applauded!

[b]4.  Increase in Smuggled Products: - [/b]Again, the mention of this factor just shows me the general poverty of intellect that many Nigerians suffer from. Indeed I heard several people congratulate the CBN Governor for his “brilliance” when he mentioned this. I was so aghast that my jaw dropped open. Anywhere else in the world government officials would be loathe to give such a brazen admission of utter incompetence. Not so here.

At all events, for the purposes of the arguments advanced by the OP, the simple reason that this factor fails as a reason is because petrol has a marketing chain which ends in petrol stations and therefore it is possible by backward tracing to determine the volume which reaches Nigerian Petrol stations. Given that each Operator has records of the marketers it purchases from, it is also possible to easily determine what quantities are sold in Nigeria as against quantities that take flight as smuggled petrol. Thus any serious government will only have to pay that which ends in the Nigerian Market. A government that cannot do this, Is not fit to run a nursery school.

It is thus obvious that the reasons proffered by the OP are as ludicrous as they spurious and laughable. There is none of these factors which has not always existed: and there is none, taken either by itself or together with others  - that could justify a rise from 240 billion to 1.3 trillion. And that is a cast iron fact.

digidamage:
Back to the main issue. WHy the hullabaloo about the fuel subsidy and the subsequent decision to remove it? simple, because it suddenly went up to N1.6trillion naira. In 2009 & 2010 it averaged N270billion, or thereabout. So why the 500% increase in a year?
First, a few facts.
Between January 2011 and March 2011, FG paid an average of N22billion monthly as subsidy. At that rate, we would have paid around N264billion (which was close to the N240billion budget signed by the National Assembly). However, something happened afterwards. From April 2011, subsidy increased to over N100billion monthly and stayed that way until the end of the year. Don't forget, April was the mont of the elections. This is what we need to look into.
The funny thing, and i shudder as i think of this, is that there might be no cabal afterall. And even if they exist, they are not the ones who submitted the 2012 budget proposal to the National Assembly last December. The didn't propose a billion naira for feeding in the presidency. The didnt propose N300k for desktop computers etc. In any case, Nigerians didn't vote for the so called CABALS. These blame-game by the Jonathan regime must stop

GBAM! Very well said.

^ FALSE. If this were true then why was less than 300 billion budgeted for the subsidy in the 2011 budget? ? ? ? ?

Please don't peddle outright lies. The reasons advanced by efisher were ludicruous: those factors have existed in every year and did not lead to a 400 per cent jump in cost.

gabbytabby:
Deepsight
From your argument the subsidy is actually 300billion but the system is so corrupt that they are able to provide paperwork to a tune of 1.3 trillion which the FG is obliged to pay within 90days or face additional interest cost. What would be your advise on dealing with this issue and while all the supposed investigation is ongoing, what happens to the ones that continue to accumulate in the system? continue paying them even if it mounts up to 2 or 10 trillion or what would you advise that interim measure should be.

Now here is a point that I find particularly unnaceptable. That argument by SLS to the effect that it is impossible to curb the corruption in the system on account of the presentation of false documentation is in my view one of the most defeatist, irresponsible and unintelligent arguments I have ever heard in my life.

In the first instance, it amounts to an admission of incompetence on the part of the government. Such a governmentr ought to honorably resign.

However to your question. It beats the imagination that a government can assert that ships come into its ports, deliver a tangible product (petroleum), and that such a product is received at designated terminals, and that the government is unable to determine the quantities of the product that are brought in.

This is a callous and shocking thing to say: the and it amazes me that Nigerians ascribe intelligence to Sanusi Lamido Sanusi for this most ridiculous admission of the worst form of clueless incompetence. How can it seriously be asserted that a government, if serious, cannot determine the volume of petroleum off-loaded at its ports? ? ?

Aside from the fact that Petroleum is delivered through terminals and as such can be readily measured, there is the addittional fact that this petroleum is sold through a marketing line up to the point where it reaches the final consumer at the Gas Station. Every step of the process is traceable and verifiable: the downstream operators have the product in storage and transfer it to their sales points; before this, they purchased the product and can confirm the quantities purchased and the quantities sold. The entire process can be traced from both ends.

It is the height of irresponsibility for a government to state that it cannot determine such. Such a government is not fit to manage even a nursery school, let alone a nation such as Nigeria. In any civilized clime, such a statement is enough to cause the fall of the government.

Bizzarely, in Nigeria, some people are celebrating SLS for making this sort of statement, chanting about how intelligent he is!

I don't think I can ever understand this country.

There is no excuse whatsoever for stating that false documenation cannot be addressed. However it is noteworthy that such practices could not have originated in 2011 alone and as such this serves as no explanation for the unique jump in the cost of the sucsidy for 2011.

efisher:
I'm not interested in making any excuses and I will appreciate if people with analytical minds can come into this thread and do justice also. As you've noticed, smuggling / corruption is included in my list.
Going forward, let's look at the case of cars imports for example. Recall GEJ relaxed the age limit for importing cars. That must have had a direct impact on number of cars getting into the country. Imagine how many people bought up "fuel guzzlers" that were being dumped cheaply in the US. Last year alone, I got 2 SUVs for myself. For a quick check, go to autos section here on nairaland and study how people have bought more SUVs / gasoline trucks et al from the dealers there. Maybe we can even ask people like inspired to give us an idea in terms of % increase in sales for 2011. (Indicating % increase in SUV sales) etc.

One more thing in addition to all I have listed earlier. The absence of queues from our filling stations all year round without much efforts put into plugging the borders coupled with the increase in number of importers points to the fact that FG tried to flood the market to prevent scarcity. That's another factor too.

Pls remember, I'm not interested in justifying the increase. I am only playing the role of an analyst with limited info within my reach.

Thanks

You still don't get it bro. I'll simplify it.

ALL of the factors that you mentioned above have always existed year on year - in all the years in the decade preceding 2011. And yet NONE of those years witnessed a jump of the nature witnessed in 2011 - 300 billion to 1 trillion.

What this means that you have to point to a factor unique to 2011 to account for the unprecedented and unique jump. You cannot point to factors which have existed in every year - but which did not have a similar effect in ANY other year.

What was unique to 2011? I say a highly tense presidential election. What say you?

Please answer the simplified arguments on the subsidy issue proferred here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-843824.0.html

efisher:
Iweala did explain on AIT yesterday. Can't type much now but the following are all part of the equation:

1. Increased domestic demand for transportation (Commensurate with increase in number of imported / new cars within the period)
2. Increased consumption for powering generators (Also commensurate with generator imports)
3. Increase in oil price leading to increased price of petroleum products. Note that price was kept constant at N65 all through.
4. Exchange rate factors.

And for the ten years prior, during which the cost of the subsidy regime remained below 300 billion, none of these factors existed? Get real.

All of these factors suddenly began to exist in 2011 only and led to a 1 trillion increase in the cost to 1.3 trillion? Get real.

Some of these excuses are quite insulting even to the intelligence of a five year old.

^^^ You are quite unbelievable. Can you address the arguments here please? -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-843824.0.html