I have to say that use of the word "Juggernaut" is one of the few things that really does offend me, though I realize most people who use the word don't know where it came from, or how inaccurate it is.

The fact is reports of suicides at the Rath Yatra (Chariot Festival) in Puri are greatly exxagerated, and they certainly aren't any planned part of the massive ritual. People do sometimes get trampled by accident, b/c it's so damn crowded, which is why you'll see many police and ambulance workers ready and waiting. The word was coined and propagated by dismissive Brits who made no effort to understand the festival at all, which is bubbling which thick theological significance and deep layers of meaning. It's an extremely joyous, loving, playful holiday, and its forced association with notions of destruction and and an aloof God are so violently contrary to its spirit that I find it almost physically painful. "Juggernaut" is the epitome of the colonizer trashing the native culture and religion with language.

Honestly, I cringe to see it used even in ironic jest. I would be thrilled if it would just die in usage, remaining only as a curiousity in a word museum, a remnant of stupider times.

The rabid fundo in me says "hang it all,", its offensive, tacky, meretricious, consumerist. The West has manipulated and gnarled Indic symbols and rendered them meaningless...before rapaciously appropriating something else.

But perhaps the Advaitic Hindu in me says that all things are but imperfect representations of Brahman, all things just shadowy icons of the indivisible. There is a place under the sun for the kitschy as well as the aesthetically pleasing; the infinite Buddha is as much a candle holder as the paradigmatic emblem of spiritual enlightenment.

And do not ideas spread with trade? For many these icons may be a passing murmur in their personal histories of consumerism, for others they may lead to something else.

This (as we've discussed) doesn't phase me in the least - India sells plenty of kitsch for its own holidays, and the west uses Christian symbols for equally tacky purposes during its holidays.

I'll bet the main reason we don't see more Jesus over Xmas is because of efforts to be ecumenical and not offend by including overtly Christian symbols (as opposed to Jolly St. Nick) not because Xtian fundies were opposed. Heck, they'd love to see far less of Ganesh and far more tacky creches amongst the loofah.

manish/manoj [hehe sorry i can't get over that one]...
i get the feeling you live right next to this store or something. it seems like it's a thorn in your side... you post on it all the time. i know i act like it bothers just you... it'd drive me nuts.

i say torch the store!

I don’t see Jesus and Mary lounging among the loofahs, I don’t see Moses parting the Listerine.

clearly you've not visited your friendly neighborhood urban outfitters lately:
Jesus wrapping paper, ashtrays, soap on a rope, etc, etc, etc.
There's also 'g-sus' jeans complete with a wreath of thorns logo

Kitschy ironic consumerism knows no bounds.

(I did appreciate the post though!)

clearly you've not visited your friendly neighborhood urban outfitters...

Apples to oranges. That is:

- kitsch, not straightforward/unironic
- dominant religion, not minority
- alternative/quirky chain, not mainstream like ABC or Gap

This (as we've discussed) doesn't phase me in the least...

Replace Hindu statuary with khandas and Guru Gobind Singh. Now how does it feel?

I'll bet the main reason we don't see more Jesus over Xmas is because of efforts to be ecumenical and not offend by including overtly Christian symbols (as opposed to Jolly St. Nick) not because Xtian fundies were opposed.

I bet they'd raise a stink over Jesus pictures in the equivalent a Body Shop + Pottery Barn ad.

i get the feeling you live right next to this store or something.

Yeah, I walk past it all the time.

This is one of those circumstances in which "purist" advocates of cultural/religious icons should yield to the idea that if an idea is true/time tested, it will survive -- and will not be "watered down" by consumerist renderings. I look at it from the perspective that many in Western cultures have an opportunity to be exposed to imagery that opens them up to the fact that god has many avatars. They are less likely to scoff at it if it's in popular culture. An elephant with many hands is less unbelievable if they see it in an ashtray (as sacreligious as it may seem to some). Also, think of all the divine kitsch sold in India -- near temples. Many people for very secular purposes (i.e., purely for making money). They sell "god endorsed" products, from toothpaste to towels. It's silly to think that the character or this rendition changes just because 'westerners' engage in it.

Though I can find a soap on a rope Buddha next to a soap on a rope Jesus; the normalization of Judeo-Christian discourses does play a role...Especially if we consider irony as a warped form of reverence. But I see what you’re getting at is not ironic uses of religious iconography but purely decorative ones. And it does make me cringe when I go to buy a sofa and I see a giant seated Buddha (similar to the ones I grew up seeing in religious contexts) placed on the floor decoratively in lieu of an end table in a living room display. I guess what we’re talking about is when religious objects become thoughtlessly ornamental ones (and then somehow void of spiritual meaning).
Though the store displays trivialize religious objects from Christianity as well (as evidenced by the wooden crucifixes you photographed...and I've also seen un-ironic uses holy water fonts, Statues of Mary, and ‘antique’ iconography from Baroque churches used as home decoration too...and the Urban Outfitters images examples were just easy to find online), the use of iconography from other faiths can be (and is) done with considerably less thought and less knowledge of said icon/figure/image’s oringinal religious relevance.

That was my meandering way of saying, shucks, you made a good point.

Not to beat a dead horse, but to add to Manish's apples to oranges list--the comparison with anyone's use of Jesus and Mary is a false comparison. It's the weakest calibration of respect. Even if they were equal opportunity abusers of religious iconography, the iconographies are not equivalent in their religious significance. To put it mildly, Hindu iconography is much, much, much more significant to many Hindus than Abrahamic iconography is to Abrahamic religions. If I'm not mistaken, the same is true for Sikhs, to a lesser extent. Buddhists are probably more like Hindus dependin on their school.

Also, think of all the divine kitsch sold in India -- near temples. Many people for very secular purposes (i.e., purely for making money).

Some of that stuff is disrespectful, and some of it is not. Lumping it all together is lazy. There's nothing wrong with selling iconography ("just to make money") to pilgrims, because they are buying it as part of their religious observations. They need the iconography, and someone is going to sell it to them. That doesn't make it a fundamentally disrespectful transaction.

The ABC store, however, is a fundamentally disrespectful transaction. It says to anyone who's willing to listen (as opposed to some weary elders who might just not care to try and puzzle out the nuance)--"Hey guess, what --your religion? Your Devatas? They're no more than comic book heroes to us, and we're going to use them to hawk goods, and we don't really care what you think."

Like I've said before, this just hurts me. This is one of those circumstances in which "purist" advocates of cultural/religious icons should yield to the idea that if an idea is true/time tested, it will survive

I'm not even sure what yield means. Am I going to boycott this place? No. Am I going to harass the owners or riot? No. Am I going to try and get them shut down ? No. Am I going to shop there? No. And if you shop there, even after it's been pointed out to you how disrespectful it is and that there are other options, my opinion of you will fall---perhaps only by a sliver of an epsilon, but it will fall. Maybe you don't care, but that's really all strong cultural criticism is, my opinion and my respect modulated according to yours.

Why am I not surprised when I see something like this? I think, it makes more sense to ignore it and not give it a lot of publicity. I understand that some of it may be disrespectful but what's religious to someone is a toy to others. For instance, you can sell Hanuman as a monkey-god, but it still would offend quite a lot of people, as if the prefix "monkey" takes away "god".

There are also many who understand these religious symbols and buy/possess them for showing their "understanding" of a religion or simply for aesthetic value. Believe me, a Ganpati statue sitting royally in one of the corners of your room is quite a sight. Another thing altogether that there wont be any agarbattis.

Toilet seat covers with a god's photo on it feels yucky, but it's more of a publicity stunt. Just imagine: Man puts ganpati on chappal. Hindu sees it. Makes noise. Many people come to see chappal. Some actually think its cool. Hindu makes more noise. Some more people come. Some of them buy it. The shop sells its stock. Says its pulling it out of the shelves. Hindu shuts up, his pride hurt but also happy that he managed to "stop" the sales. Little knowing, that some things sell only once coz the fad is for a limited time only, and he just helped it sell faster.

Don't publicize. Scandalous things thrive on it. Their basic objective is sales, and if they get it by offending people, so be it. Remember the ads by United Colors of Benetton?

- alternative/quirky chain, not mainstream like ABC or Gap

This (as we've discussed) doesn't phase me in the least...

Replace Hindu statuary with khandas and Guru Gobind Singh. Now how does it feel?

Two points - one is that ABC is not a mainstream store, it's a local design mecca, while Urban Outfitters is a national chain. You have your typology inverted.

Secondly, my point is about how these symbols are deployed in their home context. From what I've seen, Hindu religious imagery is far more commercialized than Sikh imagery is, precisely b/c Sikhs take offense to the use of such images in that context whereas, in India, from what I have seen, Hindus do not.

Also, think of all the divine kitsch sold in India -- near temples. Many people for very secular purposes (i.e., purely for making money).

Some of that stuff is disrespectful, and some of it is not. Lumping it all together is lazy. There's nothing wrong with selling iconography ("just to make money") to pilgrims, because they are buying it as part of their religious observations. They need the iconography, and someone is going to sell it to them. That doesn't make it a fundamentally disrespectful transaction.

Actually, my issue isn't with what is sold at temples but with what is sold at tourist stores in India. Clay and brass statuettes are routinely sold as tourist items - bring back a bit of India's history, remember its spirituality, here, have a Ganesh. All of the government run export stores have shelves upon shelves of these, and it seemed pretty routine for hindus to bring them back for their non-hindu friends, as well as for non-hindus to be encouraged to buy them. [Sikh religious imagery is sold mainly at Gurudwaras, not at tourist fairs for precisely this reason]

Now, I think you have a point if the imagery is being used in an explicitly disrespectful way - thong, chapals, etc. But to sell it as ecumenical holiday ornamentation, just like crucifixen or
creches, seems ignorant but hardly offensive.

If a store in New York looks just like one in New Delhi, then I think it is far harder to criticize.

Like I said, American Xtians would probably rather people were buying crosses and creches, and see Ganeshes for sale at ABC as evidence of growing multi-culturalism. I don't think this is disrespectul, merely commercial, just like in India.

The ABC store, however, is a fundamentally disrespectful transaction. It says to anyone who's willing to listen (as opposed to some weary elders who might just not care to try and puzzle out the nuance)--"Hey guess, what --your religion? Your Devatas? They're no more than comic book heroes to us, and we're going to use them to hawk goods, and we don't really care what you think."

May I suggest the simple gesture of writing a letter to the store? Or even dropping by and talking to a manager. Not to angrily insist they take everything down, but to let them know how their display affects you. It seems pretty important.

Weird, I happen to work at what I suppose people would call soho boutique version of ABC, (more real antiques than reproductions)...but we definetly don't put Buddhas on the floor or put christmas decorations around Hindu, Christian or Buddhist iconology.

So, I'm not sure what the main issue here is, the marketing and disrespectful display of the iconology, or the very fact that it is a commercial product...

This is why I'm glad that there is one religion that banned iconology. I'm sure I'd be more sympathetic to this subject if I had to sell Muhammed throw pillows and Allah-on-a-rope.

This is slightly surprising, because while ABC always been tacky, the people I know in charge over there don't seem like the type to make such blatant and disrespectful moves.

Whether intentional or not, the ironic conflation of religious traditions in the display seems like a clever comment on the realities of muliticulti urban america.

My family is Hindu, yet we give Christmas presents. We've had Navratri gollus with little Christmas trees and nutcracker dolls, that didn't look too different from these windows. The display speaks to this reality: Christmas is no longer simply Christian.

Based on the pic's, the display is startling, smart, and very pretty. It's also crass, commercial, irreverent and irritating -- no one likes it when corporations presume to speak about their culture and religion. It makes me a little resentful, and it seems to lack a certain reverence you might see in a similar display in India.

But it's effective advertising -- just look how much attention we're giving to it.

BTW, some ABC Home executive was interviewed in a recent issue of BlackBook magazine. Did anyone see it? She was insufferabe and very New Agey about what ABC was trying to do -- sell "meaning" and not just furniture, or something.

The comments point out the need to define better what is making people uneasy about this display.

Is it:

1. The use of Hindu religious iconography in a non-religious setting?
   
2. The use of Hindu relgious iconography for decorative purpose?
   
3. The use of Hindu relgious iconography for commercial purpose?
   
4. The use of Hindu relgious iconography for commercial purpose by non-Hindus?
   
5. The use of Hindu relgious iconography for commercial purpose by non-Hindus in a non-ironic way?
   
6. The use of Hindu relgious iconography for commercial purpose by non-Hindus in a non-ironic way that we believe Christian symbols would not be used?
   

I think it's clear that the use of religious iconography in this setting is not blasphemous, as in the toilet seat or chapal examples.

So what's the beef with its use here? [Saheli - I'm really just trying to understand]
Would points #1-3 be offensive if done by Hindus in India? I suspect that Saheli might find that offensive too, but it appears to be widespread. As a non-Hindu, I'd be happy to recognize Hindu religious sentiment on this issue if this was a well established and consistent principle about the appropriate use of holy images.

If it's points #4-5, then really isn't this again another inside/outside point? We can do it, but they cannot? That's a hard position to take with a world religion. Especially if we accept Hindus selling iconography for decorative and commercial purposes to non-Hindus, how can we object to the same from ABC? If ABC was suddenly bought by a Hindu would that change things? Or if it was purchased by an Indian company?

If it's point #6, this becomes an empirical matter. My problem is that I see Christian iconography used both ironically and decoratively in commercial contexts, as in your photos above. Any objection from point #6 has to hinge of the distinction between the proper usage of Hindu and Christian icons (as Saheli has made) which really then reverts back to points #1-3: Though shalt not take the images of divinity in vain.

To put it mildly, Hindu iconography is much, much, much more significant to many Hindus than Abrahamic iconography is to Abrahamic religions.

wha?? Even been in a Catholic church? Besides a whole raft of saints and the cross, loaves, fishes, thorns, angels, etc. are prayed to and loaded with totemic significance.

Byzantine religious iconography to Renaissance paintings: flooded with religious symbols (dove, cherubim, chalice, etc.)not to mention characters from the Old and new testement.. and theviewer was assumed to know what everything represented.

PETA had a campaign that involved the Virgin Mary holding a dead chicken. Tagline :"Go vegetarian: It's an immaculate conception." See here for response from the Catholic League:

Maybe if PETA were to think of Jews and Catholics as if they were jaguars and cats, its bigotry would end.

Sure - apples and oranges - they are two separate religions. But it's pretty dismissive to say that one's more significant than the other.

try not to get upset, Vij-- pity the poor hipsters who are stupid enough to pay ABC's prices. they should be upset with themselves.

But yes, XariGirl and I walked past their heinous windows on Friday night and really there wasn't much more to say than "WTF?!" Goddess of Mercy, Kuan Yin playing in a xmas scene with Ganesha just seems a bit cartoonish-- not so much blasphemous-- to me. Maybe they smoke up a lot at ABC in their window-design meetings?

Hmm.. in response to the questions posed by ennis, I'd say that the PETA thing I mentioned above might work as an example.

It's the disrepect.

Let's keep in mind that "kitsch" actually means "tawdry" and "vulgar."

I know that now it's more along the lines of "endearingly attractive despite being tawdry and vulgar"....but still.

I know most christians are horrified by the fundies tasteless attempts to make everything about religion with no sense of perspective. Like these Jesus-the-Jock figurines. I assume that Saheli dislikes the Hindu kitsch in India for similar reasons.

But the fact remains that they are sincere in their tackiness...

Maybe the irritation here is something like the use of the the 'N' word..you can't say it unless you're black.

You can't commercialize a religion that's not your own...?

With the extra (annoying) patina of the mystic-India crap that so many new-agers try to peddle, however sincerely...?

Like these Jesus-the-Jock figurines.

Some background on the ABC Home owner that I just read a month or so ago - http://www.inc.com/magazine/20051001/qa.html

Just to clarify:

But it's pretty dismissive to say that one's more significant than the other.

dismissive to say that Abrahamic iconography is not as significant to Abrahamic religions, as Hindu iconography so to Hindus...is what I meant to say.

eddie from comment #2 broke it down right & exact:

But perhaps the Advaitic Hindu in me says that all things are but imperfect representations of Brahman, all things just shadowy icons of the indivisible. There is a place under the sun for the kitschy as well as the aesthetically pleasing; the infinite Buddha is as much a candle holder as the paradigmatic emblem of spiritual enlightenment.

And do not ideas spread with trade? For many these icons may be a passing murmur in their personal histories of consumerism, for others they may lead to something else.

preach, brother! it doesn't matter if the comparison is apples to apples or apple to oranges, it's still a comparison. why do we need to be comparing in the first place?

get your advaita on, in

peace

I do feel like this particular example is more of a threat to the significance of Christmas than to the significance of the Hindu and Buddhist deities displayed.

Where I get enraged is when they are used as decorations in a smoky nightclub, or in a bathroom...

She was insufferabe and very New Agey about what ABC was trying to do -- sell "meaning" and not just furniture, or something.

Bullshit, it seems more like they are trying to sell the death of meaning.

I look at it from the perspective that many in Western cultures have an opportunity to be exposed to imagery that opens them up to the fact that god has many avatars. They are less likely to scoff at it if it's in popular culture.

The imagery doesn't translate instantly to "god has many avatars" - without context, it looks like "here are some weird-looking gods."

"In popular culture" does not protect things from being scoffed at. How something is incorporated into popular culture is dependent on what context is provided in the process of introduction.

Standard Buddha idols get more respect than many-armed Goddess representations which derive their form from systems of symbolism utterly obscure to the West. Partly this is because the Buddhas "look more normal" without explication - imagine if the Indian representations of the emaciated Siddhartha back when he was still mortifying himself had been the first introduction of Buddhist iconography in the West. And partly because the Dalai Lama has done much to promote the most rational elements of Buddhist philosophy, while leaving out other beliefs such as the demonology, etc.

The perception of Hinduism in the West already suffers from the hippie-Karma Cola era where the most "exotic"-looking, consumable elements of Hinduism were introduced without context. We don't need more simple perpetuation of imagery at this point. That's already part of our popular culture.

An elephant with many hands is less unbelievable if they see it in an ashtray (as sacreligious as it may seem to some).

Less unbelievable, but no less ludicrous, without explication.

Also, think of all the divine kitsch sold in India -- near temples. Many people for very secular purposes (i.e., purely for making money). They sell "god endorsed" products, from toothpaste to towels.

"God-endorsed" products mean something to Hindus - they are not kitsch, regardless of the motivation for their production. They become kitsch when someone who knows or cares nothing about Hinduism picks them up as cool accessories.

It's silly to think that the character or this rendition changes just because 'westerners' engage in it.

See above for exactly why it does change.

However, I agree that the living status of Hinduism itself is not threatened by the appropriation of its imagery - there are too many of us, at least in the short term :) But it's a matter of respect of the belief system and of individuals who hold that belief system.

Don't publicize. Scandalous things thrive on it. Their basic objective is sales, and if they get it by offending people, so be it. Remember the ads by United Colors of Benetton?

And this is also a good point.

desiforjebus I don't mean it to be dismissive at all. I'm sorry if it came of that way. It's just my understanding of the theology.

Many of us Hindu's, including me, are idol-worshippers, plain and simple. It's true that Protestants are always accusing Catholics (but, curiously enough, not the Greek Orthodox) of idol worshipping, but it's still not the same. The key word is representation. For many Hindus---perhaps even most, thought I don't have any statistics--the iconography isn't just a representation of a deva, it is, or can very easily BE, the deva. As far as I know, the only thing that comes close in Catholocism and Greek Orthodox religions is the host in Communion, thanks to the doctrine of transubstatiation. When I was a kid my friend, the wannabe Roman Catholic priest (whom we lost touch with precisely b/c he left for seminary the same time we moved out) told me that when Episcopalians and the like take communion, they believe that transubstantiation is a function of the faith of the believer, while Catholics believe that it is a function of the faith of the priest OR perhaps of the ritual itself, not requiring a truly faithful priest. All that decor on the walls is holy and revered and important, but it is not GOD made flesh and readily available for humans to talk to and relate to. Similarly, the closest thing I can think of for the Jews is the lost Ark, and for the Muslims, the Kaba, but both of these cases are both singular and much fuzzier.

Wheras in Hinduism it is a bit fuzzy what makes an icon a true Deity. The very form? Some would say yes. The installation ceremony? Some would say yes. The faith of the installer? Some would say yes. What is not necessary by most accounts is the faith of the viewer. Once a Deity is "inhabited" (whenever and however that inhabiting takes form) I've never heard of the Deity being uninhabited, no matter how neglected or abused.

Ennis, I will have to ponder your precision more. I don't think my qualms quite fits into any of those categories. For one thing, I'm not sure why there's so much excuse given to ironic use. I'm no slave to irony, and I rather despise the idea that anything can be excused as long as "it's ironic." When you say something and hope that your ironic attitude will make sure that the literal statement is not what you mean, you're not necessarily being clear about what you do mean. And your very lack of clarity can, in many instances, be disrespectful. When you're seriously talking about serious things and serious issues, irony is not always helpful, and since helpfulness is what such communication/conversation is about, irony can in itself be disrespectful. Note all my qualifiers--I'm not making a blanket statement. Irony implies a certain desire to trick or amaze the audience, to catch them off guard, to prod them or amuse them. Sometimes none of that is appropriate. A lot of the appropriateness depends on the relationshgip between the audience and the actor, and that's where the issue of Hindus/Non-Hindus/Majority/Minority really comes in.

I will also note that, ahem, coughm, cough, some of us are not Advaiststs, and just b/c all you self-identifying Advaitists are so down with eferything does not mean that the beliefs and feelings of the rest of us don't matter at all. :-)

Nina-if ABC was remotely in my universe, I might very well at least go talk to them. I have done so in the past. Maybe Manoj can write a letter, and keep it clean. ;-)

It's complicated. I will have to ponder it some more.

All that decor on the walls is holy and revered and important, but it is not GOD made flesh and readily available for humans to talk to and relate to.

I don't think the distinction is so clear, given the range of variation within Hindu practices as well as within Catholic-Orthodox practices.

As a quick example, my Greek Orthodox friends kiss the Jesus icon at the end of services, and it seems to be a more emotional/devotional experience than if the icon were just considered a representation. (Anna, weigh in here please.)

On the other hand, I am given to believe that our idols only "become" gods when the deity is invoked in the process of a puja to inhabit the idol. If such invocations do not occur, then the idol is only a representation...so based on my interpretation of what Saheli has written above, she and I already have widely variant practices with respect to the significance of idols.

For many Hindus... the iconography isn't just a representation of a deva, it is, or can very easily BE, the deva.

Of course, the Vedantic interpretation is that it's just a symbol meant to focus the mind.

Of course, the Vedantic interpretation is that it's just a symbol meant to focus the mind.

Exactly - interaction with idols/icons has such a wide range of variation within Hinduisms and Christianities that I don't think there is a strict distinction between the way idols/icons are approached in "Hinduism" vs. "Christianity."

Then when you add in the way individuals actually approach their icons/idols to the way they think they approach them, even more intra-religious variation is introduced.

Well, if I'm mistaken about the cut off line between representative and manifest iconography for the Greek Orthodox church, I apologize. That did seem to be the biggest exception to me previously, anyway.

I agree, Deepa, that there's a lot of range. But if you look at the relevant histograms, while there might be quite a bit of overlap between the Christian group and the Hindu group, and the extremes of each might reach as far as the other's, my sense is that if you look at the bulk of the populations they fall into clearly different categories. You are just much more likely to run into one of these same statues being installed respectfully in any given Hindu's home then you are likely to run into icons installed in any given Christian's home. Maybe I'm wrong. But the fact that Christianity actually has an injunction against idol-worshipping and Hinduism does not seems fundamentally distinctive. I mean, many Hindu's feed their Deities. They relate to the very specific, physical Deity that *they* take care of. "Alright, you have fed *your* Deity of Ganesh, but I have to go feed *mine*." This is a very common sentiment. It's not always consistent, at least not from a Western perspective, but it exists. Is there any sense in which even a Greek Orthodox person would ever consider a Crucifix gathering dust somewhere to be, in some hard to describe sense, hungry and thirsty? If so, I didn't know that.

(BTW, Deepa, I too generally hold that an icon is not a Deity until Someone of Faith has invoked the Deva into the Deity. I don't think the whole Puja is necessary though.)

Also, if Roman Catholics and Orthodox Greeks take umbrage at (I think I'm going to use that phrase instead of get offended by) Jesus on a soap string, I say that's perfectly understandable. The hipster putting Jesus on a soap on a rope is almost certainly silently telling those groups, "I don't really care about your beliefs," and proudly so. He or she therefore does not care for the respect and regard of the believing Christian, and therefore does not deserve it. One could even make a case that the same majority/minority dynamic applies to icon-using Christians, but weakly. This is, after all, historically a Protestant society. Even the ethnicities that traditionall use icons (Hispanic/Italian/Greek/Eastern European/Ethiopian/Syrian/Indian etc) are all somewhat marginalized. I'm just saying that because of the theological nature of their faith, they are less likely to take quite the same umbrage as certain Hindus--or at least feel the same cringing pain.

But Ennis is right, and the real question is not a matter of comparison but a matter of the nature of this particular conversation. And I still need to think about that to articulate it precisely.

my sense is that if you look at the bulk of the populations they fall into clearly different categories.

Yeah, Saheli, this is where we disagree.

But the fact that Christianity actually has an injunction against idol-worshipping and Hinduism does not seems fundamentally distinctive.

Let me put it this way - the philosophies are seemingly different on this point, yet the practices often though not always look suspiciously similar.

But Ennis is right, and the real question is not a matter of comparison but a matter of the nature of this particular conversation.

Yep.

Saheli, I think your perception of Christianity is narrowly Protestant. Catholics certainly would not be ok with a cross gathering dust.

Treating your idol as a person (feeding them etc.) is not the only way to revere something as sacred you know. Catholic statues are kissed, blessed, cried over, paraded around, garlanded, prayed to, candles and incense are offered, vows are taken in the name of pick-your-saint. Medals bearing the image of St.Christopher (patron saint of travellers) for example are worn when travelling.

It seems awfully close to Hinduism to me. (minus the polytheism..but then that whole three-gods-in-one Trinity thing..)

:)

As far as I can tell, then dominant religion in the US is consumerism. Most Americans do the easter (bunny) thing and the xmas (santa) thing, at best. The far right fundies would be too busy thinking that ABC catered to heathens to think about shopping there.

And yes, most catholics find that pope-on-a-rope stuff disrespectful and rather shocking. Catholics will joke amongst themselves about stuff, but feel endlessly guilty about it. (kidding! well, sort of)

I think it's a question of respect. I may not be Hindu, but i have relatives by marriage who are...and the cluelessness with which these windows are arranged is aggravating, even to non-Hindu me.

As a Hindu who was flat-out outraged by the deities on thongs/toiletseats/chappals thing, I'm finding it hard to muster outrage against ABC, other than irritation for the one display where Ganesh was placed among towels and soaps...People who are willing to spend the big bucks for these idols are NOT the sort to be disrespectful of Hinduism. Yes those folks may be annoying and new agey and no they certainly don't relate to the idols in the same way a Hindu does, but putting Christmas decorations around the idols at least situates them in an explicitly religious context; that's WAY less ignorant than the thong-people.

Also, while the idols are religious to Hindus, that doesn't detract from the fact that they have purely secular, artistic value as sculpture to others (including to millions of Hindus in India as well, as Ennis pointed out). There is a world-wide trade in religious art. Yes, we're idol worshippers unlike other religions, but that's just semantics when discussing objects of religious significance. I'm sure an early Persian Quranic scroll would have significance for a Muslim in a way that it simply wouldn't for me; does this mean I should not buy it for what historical, artistic or aesthetic value it may hold for me?

In general, I think people should be free to take what they want from Hinduism - being mild and tolerant is a GOOD thing. So long as such taking doesn't interfere with my practice and isn't blatantly offensive, I find the outrage difficult to understand.

I don’t see Jesus and Mary lounging among the loofahs

But you might soon see Jesus Juice in the wine section...

Okay, here's a suggestion:

If Hindu icons are regarded by practising Hindus as being sacred in the genuine sense, then perhaps it should be necessary to obtain some kind of licence before acquiring such an item. Yes, I know this goes against the tradition of hassle-free distribution of such items to anyone of any faith wishing to obtain them (especially in India), but at least it's one way to prevent the abuse of Hindu icons by misguided or unscrupulous individuals of different faiths (or none). It also ensures that such items only go to people who really will treat them with the necessary level of reverence and view them as sacred.

I'm sure an early Persian Quranic scroll would have significance for a Muslim in a way that it simply wouldn't for me; does this mean I should not buy it for what historical, artistic or aesthetic value it may hold for me?

Following on from my paragraph above, I guess the response would be "It depends on exactly what you're going to do with it".

Shoot me if you must... I actually think the store displays in those pictures are quite pretty.

But you might soon see Jesus Juice in the wine section...

Or in your room when you're scared of the dark...

And Jesus can help you fight G.I. Joe as well...

If Hindu icons are regarded by practising Hindus as being sacred in the genuine sense, then perhaps it should be necessary to obtain some kind of licence before acquiring such an item.

You said this on the last thread, and gov't regulation is such a bad idea. Besides, we have a First Amendment over here, old chap :)

I actually think the store displays in those pictures are quite pretty.

So do I, but that's quite apart from the issue.

Hello Manish,

You said this on the last thread, and gov't regulation is such a bad idea. Besides, we have a First Amendment over here, old chap :)

[I'm not a Hindu myself, but am just playing Devil's Advocate and trying to come up with suggestions to prevent the desecration or all-round mistreatment of Hindu icons by either misguided or malicious individuals].

In any case, maybe the primary groups who would be responsible for deciding who should get such a "licence" should be Hindu religious authorities, eg. temples, ISKCON, the Swaminarayan mission etc. I'm not saying one needs to go to some government official, but perhaps such responsibilities and decisions can be delegated to the aforementioned religious organisations.

Using another example -- and one which (I think) Ennis alluded to in one of his own messages -- it is not so easy to get hold of a hard copy of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, even if you happen to be a Sikh. Since "murtis" and indeed depictions of Hindu gods & goddesses in general are similarly viewed as very sacred by huge numbers of Hindus, perhaps it should also not necessarily be so easy to obtain such items either -- especially by non-Hindus who intend to abuse the privilege.

I may be completely wrong here -- I have read on-line copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights etc (you can primarily blame The West Wing for motivating me *wink*, although I have a long-time interest in such things) -- and I'm not a lawyer either, so please feel free to pick my suggestions apart.

Jai Singh,

I think the problem with that idea is that it is not enforceable (and just plain wrong, in my opinion :) ). First, the government cannot get in the business of licensing religious objects - how is that separation of church and state? And secondly, if the government won't be involved in policing, than how are non-governmental agencies going to police citizens who are free to express themselves as they wish? Why should you in any way have a say in what I do with this object? Why should one person's offense govern another person's freedom to express themselves as they see fit? Licensing religious objects is a spectacularly bad idea. Who elects these spokespersons of 'correct display of religious imagery', and what right have they to say how a person may use a particular object? This kind of thing is anathema to a free society.

*Start down this road, and you'll have some sorts of feminists looking to license objectionable images of women, and then half of the links on Sepia Mutiny would be forbidden....

Jai Singh, your comment (I know you're acting as Devil's advocate) reminds me of my visit to Kanchipuram last year. Some of the temples there do not allow "non-Hindus" in - the argument of course being that these are very holy places and not just something to gawk at.

But how can they determine who is "non-Hindu?" Easy - all brown people are allowed in, all non-browns are forbidden. But who is to say that all the brown people are religious? When I asked, they resorted to the "if you're born Hindu, you're Hindu" argument. (Simultaneously taking care of the question of whether a person not born into a Hindu family should be allowed in because of his/her serious practice of Hindu beliefs.)

In practice, then, the rule is racist. (If you ask me, the injunction against "non-Hindus," which restricts no-caste people from entering, is the closest they can legally get to restricting low-caste people from entering.)

I will also note that, ahem, coughm, cough, some of us are not Advaiststs, and just b/c all you self-identifying Advaitists are so down with eferything does not mean that the beliefs and feelings of the rest of us don't matter at all. :-)

Some of us are Seventh Day Advaiststs!

MD:

Idolater though I am, you're on-target. Such legal or quasi-legal proscription would entangle the govt. with religion far too much. I do think, however, that vigorous critiques/complaints (politely worded, since I don't want to incure Mr. Vij's wrath ;) ) are quite permissible.

Deepa:

Let me follow you off on your tangent. The proscription on non-Hindus entering some mandirs is not, per se, racist or casteist. Xtns and Muslims--however 'brown' their hue--are barred, as are some high-caste hindus (most famously, Mrs. Indira Gandhi).

Rather than seeing race or caste-prejudice as the basis of such rules, I think they are an attempt to 'think out' the consequences of (one particular) conception of a pan-Hindu identity. On the ground, given the practicalities, this conception is 'operationalized' as 'Let desi people in;Keep 'phoren' people out'.

This isn't fair to those 'phoreners' who have an affinity for Hindu traditions, of course. But caste and race prejudice isn't its basis.

Kumar

Xtns and Muslims--however 'brown' their hue--are barred

In theory, presuming they are identifiable as such. If a Christian of Indian descent shows up and isn't wearing a huge medallion or cross, he/she can go right in.

This isn't fair to those 'phoreners' who have an affinity for Hindu traditions, of course. But caste and race prejudice isn't its basis.

Unfortunately, it's not easy for caste and race prejudice to be separated from notions of "who is a Hindu." By one popular definition put into practice at the temples, Non-Hindus are all those who are foreigners (of a different race). Non-Hindus do not have caste.

It's possible that the motive is pure (holy places are for believers) and the execution is flawed (we don't want to ask for some sort of "believer identification," so we just exclude those who were obviously not born Hindu).

But the execution creates a racist situation and possibly (I think definitely) reinforces racist notions in the minds of those who enforce it. Whether or not you care for the "plight" of foreigners who are not allowed into temples, is this the sort of emphasis we want in 21st-century Hinduism?

If Jai's suggestion (from the standpoint of Devil's advocate) were to be carried out, wouldn't we just see the same thing happening - people of Indian descent can have Hindu paraphernalia and people of other races can't. Does anyone expect that none of those people of Indian descent would make inappropriate use of these items?

Anyhow, it's not like restricting a single book, or even a set of books. Restricting newly-manufactured Hindu items is one thing, but legally restricting mention or use of Hindu imagery or ideas by non-Hindus is impossible.

Deepa:

...legally restricting mention or use of Hindu imagery or ideas by non-Hindus is impossible.

As I wrote earlier, I am also not in favor since I think it would, necessarily, involve excessive entanglement of govt. and religion.

It's possible that the motive is pure (holy places are for believers) and the execution is flawed (we don't want to ask for some sort of "believer identification," so we just exclude those who were obviously not born Hindu).

My family is Shaiva (with a decided emphasis on Purva Mimasaka-style exegesis), so I don't subscribe to the notion that one is a Hindu if and only if one is born in a Hindu family. If you are arguing that such a notion isn't racist/casteist by definition, then I agree.

Indeed, merely citing a differential racial effect of any particular policy doesn't make it racist, per se. Those who believe that Hindu-ness is a familial property do not, by definition, conceive of Hindu-ness in racial terms. That Hindu families, as a matter of fact, are various hues of brown is irrelevant.

Again, further buttressing its non-racial/non-casteist nature is the exclusion of brown Xtns & Muslims (and that is not rare) and high-caste persons, as I wrote earlier.

But the execution creates a racist situation and possibly (I think definitely) reinforces racist notions in the minds of those who enforce it. Whether or not you care for the "plight" of foreigners who are not allowed into temples, is this the sort of emphasis we want in 21st-century Hinduism?

No, I don't think it reinforces 'racist' notions since race is not the basis for this policy, as I argued above. Of course, using ‘phoreness’ as a criterion for exclusion involves assessment of race. But it is unfair only in those cases where ‘phoren’ Hindus are excluded. I would think that a good compromise would be to modify the rule to ‘include desis (unless they’re non-Hindu) and exclude phoreners (unless they claim Hindu status)'.

Kumar

"True, but if people are attempting to acquire such artifacts for non-religious intentions -- especially if there is a chance that such imagery will be used or displayed in disrespectful ways or in a manner incompatible with the sanctity offered to such icons within Hinduism -- then perhaps the "freedom of religion" concept doesn't necessarily apply here?"

My understanding of contemporary First Amendment doctrine that the disrespectful or offensive use of that which others hold sacred is PRECISELY the sort of thing that the First Amendment would be interpreted to PROTECT (e.g. the government couldn't ban installation art featuring someone urinating on the Quran or a crucifix or whatever); on this view the "misuse" of a religious symbol is not illegitimate under the First Amendment, but is the very sort of unpopular, offensive and (often) minority opinion that contemporary courts would view as protected by the US Constitution.

[And just so I'm clear, I'm making NO claim as to whether this is a good or a bad rule, but merely that's how present day US courts would come out on this].

...Following on from the above, I guess one problem (as others have discussed in this thread) is a line-drawing problem. For instance, in Salman Rushdie's "Shame" Colonel Raza dreamt that "excrement was being poured over the Kaaba" (this novel obviously slipped under the fatwa-dar in part because unlike the later--and better-- Satanic Verses the title wasn't a dead giveaway!). Now a practising Muslim could easily argue that this is a misuse of one of the most sacred Islamic symbols-- but acceptance of this view would mean that James Joyce's work (remember the "Ballad of Joking Jesus" in "Ulysses", including a pun on the Holy Spirit and, well, a dick; "Finnegans Wake" is systematically offensive when it comes to the Quran-- e.g. "the itches, the scratches, the minnies, and the coughies"-- and Christianity-- e.g. "Her ringtime rung, her rill be run, unhemmed as it is uneven"), along with Rushdie's and a great deal of 20th century literature, cinema, etc., would be prohibited on the grounds of misuse of religious symbols. Personally since I adore Joyce, and believe "The Satanic Verses" to be the greatest English-language novel by an Indian that I have read, that would make me rather upset. If anything, the case of religious symbols being used purely for consumption is weaker, since in many cases people are not (as SMR noted) trying to be offensive...

[The above notwithstanding, I am sensitive to the reality that contemporary consumption patterns are such that the impact falls disproportionately on Hinduism, Buddhism, and "Eastern" belief systems generally. i.e. in the West Christianity is the favorite whipping boy when it comes to "blasphemous" art (I forgot the name of that Kevin Smith film), which sort of thing is not much of a problem where Hinduism is concerned-- but on the other hand you'd never see Allah or Jesus on a toilet seat or a thong...]

I've really enjoyed reading this and I took some photos for my holiday desktop, too.
I was raised "Christian" but now study Vedic Literatures and am particularly enamoured of the Vaisnava traditions.
I am no expert, but it is my understanding that anything which serves to remind us of the Supreme Lord and His associates and pastimes is a very good thing.