*jaw dropping*

How do you get to be stupid enough to put this in writing?

further evidence, that if you can't conduct yourself well, emails have a really bad habit of resurfacing and biting you in the ass...

Actually, this is hardly surprising, and I don't think it will bite anyone in the ass. If anything, I bet mad people in Minnesota are nodding their heads and congratulating this guy on trying to save this heathen.

I'm from the midwest and have been subjected to some form of this bullshit continuously for the last 20 years. As soon as they figure out that you are smart, more educated and have a brighter future, they immediately set in with the whole "save the savage" angle. Brown people can't catch a break.

You guys are assuming that Rae Hart Anderson wouldn't want this stuff public. I think you misunderstand the evangelical mindset. It's likely that, as far as she's concerned, the ensuing tamasha is an opportunity to preach salvation through Jesus Christ. Wish for the best, indeed.

To get a sermon is definitely a surprise,” Chaudhary told WCCO. (Perhaps he should write back: “Tat tvam asi, Rae!”)

Hellz yeah. But I agree with bidismoker: There is nothing scandalous or unusual about this; many of us grew up with this.

Argh - I grew up there (actually lived in Shoreview where Anderson lives) and am reminded of why I left.

As a Christian who married a Hindu this kind of thing annoys me. I can remember a sermon once in which the pastor quoted Gandhi something to the effect of "I have no problem with Christ, it's the behavior of Christians that's the problem".

She definitely wants this publicized and made public. It appears that this woman is merely pandering to her constituents. I am sure she believes that she is being sincere, the tone of the letter comes off a bit smug and self-serving. Religious conversion is a personal issue and should not be coerced or flaunted. Actions speak louder than words and in my opinion letters, handouts, etc are relatively ineffective in terms of conversions. Christ himself cautions against overtly public and ostentious displays at least in terms of prayer.

Live and let live. If someone asks you about your religion fine, but don't shove it in their face.

There’s nothing like belonging to Christ…not winning, not money, not degrees…it’s the best.

Good wishes and better wishes…until you wish for the best!

Such mawkishness....yuk!
They need something like the bad sex writing award for spiritual stuff too.

this country needs a (viable) third party, desperately.
a libertarian party.

I'm from the midwest and have been subjected to some form of this bullshit continuously for the last 20 years. As soon as they figure out that you are smart, more educated and have a brighter future, they immediately set in with the whole "save the savage" angle. Brown people can't catch a break.

Easy with the hating on Minnesota -- don't forget who actually *won* this race! (And some other fantastic folks have been elected in Minnesota -- Mee Moua and Mark Ritchie, for example, and of course a few years back the late Paul Wellstone.)

My experience in the Midwest wasn't anything like that at all. And don't lull yourself into thinking that we are somehow immune from this kind of thing on the coasts....

Minnesota's former Governor's comment on religion comes to mind...

Wow. That is my only reaction. I think she should be pained to think that a non-xian is actually being her "ruler", her "king", who is being forced upon her because of democracy. If she has her way, she would amend the constitution to the affect that only xians can run for office. Hmm, about xian variation of jijia tax?

It annoys me to great length that whenever I meet a xian, that he might be thinking of saving me and when I meet a muslim that he might be thinking that I am a kafir. Enough of these insults already.

I wanna say what Abhishek says in Sarkar - "Mein tumhara bhagwan pe viswaas nahi karta"

those who can only see darkness in others from which they want to save them will never see the light.

Prey.

Thanks for the Jesse Ventura link, an honest politician there!

Who will Jesus condescend to today?

Who will Jesus condescend to today?

:-D . That was hilarious.

My Dad always tells me this story about how when he first came to the states (for grad school) he ended up in the south. The year that he started his program, they rounded up all of the Indian graduate students and tried to covert them to Christianity. I guess some things never change.

my answer to all these people has always been:

Your God, being omniscient and all, still put me in a Hindu family knowing that I would never convert...what does that say to you about your God/religion etc.

this usually baffles people enough to keep em quiet. It doesn't hurt that I can quote the Bible back to them when challenged :P

a side note: did you know that the text "John 3:16" is printed on the bottom of Forever 21 shopping bags. Because the owner is religious. So religious infact, that he wants young girls to show off as much of their God-given bodies as possible, in slutty slutty clothing (I love this store :P, but I always refuse to take the bag)

Honestly guys, is this such a big deal?

I don't exactly have the same perspective, being Catholic, but why does this admittedly irritating phenomena have to be anything other than a low-level annoyance?

Unless the same person keeps bugging you after you've made it clear you're not interested, just consider it part of the background noise of society. I wouldn't make massive generalizations based on it like "she would amend the Constitution" or "they think we're savages."

This email just seems like an overenthusiastic, pushy woman doing a little evangelizing in a private email to someone she never expects to see again. Just smile, nod, and move on.

CS

OMHG!!!(Oh my heathen God) Ignorant fool and one HELL of a sore loser!!! The thing about the US is that many Americans don’t want to learn about other religions or learn to swallow the fact that the concept of religious tolerance exists. My sob story for being a hated hindu.... I was chatting with a colleague and in response to a statement I said "You have my word on that", his response was, "Why would I trust your word when you aren’t a Christian." I usually would not dignify that with a reply, but I was shocked, you don’t usually get this shit in diverse DC, so I replied, "So you don’t think my word is worth much because I pray to god and not his son." And yes, it was wrong but it made me feel better!!!
Overall people like that aren’t really doing the work of god; Mr. Anderson had better come up with a good excuse to explain his behavior when he meets his maker.

Kenyandesi - never noticed that about the Forever 21 shopping bags! Jesus would be pissed to be associated with cheap, poorly-finished, trendy, revealing clothing (much as I LOOOVE that store ;)

Remember that Britney Spears was evangelical too...and Jessica Simpson started out as a Christian singer.

ooppss, Sorry Ms Anderson!

did you know that the text "John 3:16" is printed on the bottom of Forever 21 shopping bags. Because the owner is religious.

I'm sure Jesus told him to put Asian and Latina women and girls in sweatshops to work all day for hardly any money.

The burger joint In-N-Out also prints Bible verses on its cups and wrappers.

Monotheism is the problem.
If you are an honest/true believer in one of the Abrahamic faiths, you have no option but to proselytize. And to crow about the superiority of your god/prophet etc.

CS:

It would be just a minor annoyance because you dont have to feel and re-live the indifference that I do, when someone would insinuate that you are praying to a 'false god' or that that 'many gods doesnt make sense' etc. When someone says, "I dont want my daughter to marry a muslim, but if she likes a hindu boy, then it would be great if he goes to church also. About you *name*, you are a good man, I will pray for you, because I dont want you not to go to heaven just because you dont believe in jesus".

Come on seriously, are these people for real?

I guess this was what she thought was meant by losing "with grace". ;)

The burger joint In-N-Out also prints Bible verses

I would totally forgive them because they got such good taste in making fresh cut fries.. yumyum :)) Also, their minimum wage policy is unmatched by any other fast food joint.

Honestly guys, is this such a big deal?

Yeah it kindda is.

What she's basically saying is, "you may have won this race, but you're going to hell so nyeah nyeahnyeah nyeah nyeah!" it reeks of being a sore looser, and just like we don't allow this kind of attitude/behaviour on a sports field, it shouldn't be part of any civilized exchange between people.

I have no issue if I'm going through a tough time if anyone of any religion says "I'm praying for you", but it's very different from praying for my salvation/soul...I had a French teacher who would spend half of class time everyday praying for my and my Catholic friend's souls (She believed Catholics were going to hell too). There was a girl who lived across the hall from me freshman year who had a prayer list by her bed. I was often on it (for the salvation of my soul, not because I was having a tough time)...

I have come to a point where I can ignore these kinds of people, but if I was to be put in a position where I had to listen to this kind of condescending drivel all the time (like in highschool) I'm not likely to be quiet about my discontent :P

What she's basically saying is, "you may have won this race, but you're going to hell so nyeah nyeahnyeah nyeah nyeah!" it reeks of being a sore looser

Exactly. Good old traditional MN passive-aggressiveness.

"You won the race, and that makes you petty because Jesus is what matters, not the race or your superior intelligence, etc."

If I was Satveer, I'd send back a reply:

Thank you for your concern about the state of my afterlife. At this time however, it seems that God, yours if you insist, has decided that my time should be spent taking care of the state. Here's wishing you lots of luck finding constructive things to do with all your spare time.

I think we should all be thoughtful and pitch in to send her one of those "What Would Krisha Do?" t-shirts. ;)

"What Would Krisha Do?" t-shirts. ;)

honestly, even a WWJD shirt would do, because like someone else mentioned, Jesus surely wouldn't behave so badly...just his followers need reminding of that occasionally (as we all do :P

Craig Thompson’s Blanket comes to mind.

Lonely kid raised in a strict evangelical family in the Midwest. Tries really hard to follow the scriptures. It all comes crashing down when he realizes that it is possible to have more than one interpretation of the Bible, due to complexities of translating from Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek etc.

The book is, among other things, a fair and compassionate portrayal of this culture. Worth checking out.

what a crappy conciliatory letter. definitely a sore loser.

what i don't understand about minnesota is the how such disparate strands of political ideology co-exist prominently. there's anderson types and then there is the whole wellstone camp. it makes no sense to me!

"He died for the sins of the world, yours and mine"

This has always been a point of contention for me. How can it make sense, both spiritually and logically, that a being could exonerate another's transgressions or 'sins'? Would it be acceptable for an innocent individual to stand in lieu of a guilty person in a court of law in this realm? How is that just and fair?

Jesus surely wouldn't behave so badly

True, true. Y'know, I think someone should remind her that Jesus was not a good Christian, he was a nice Jewish boy.

Imaginary absurd convesation:

Random Guy: Hey there, Jesus

Jesus: What's up, Dude?

Random Guy: Hey, I was wondering...um, have you noticed Jesus for yourself at any point in your life?

Jesus (confused): Um, I looked in the mirror this morning.

Random Guy: I mean have you REALLY and SERIOUSLY noticed Jesus for yourself?

Jesus: Do I have something on my face?

Random Guy: No, I mean...

Jesus: 'Cause I just ate a mallowmar. Do I have chocolate or something on my face?

Random Guy: No. Listen, I just want to make sure that you have accepted Jesus..I mean yourself..I mean Jesus, you, know as your Lord and Savior and everything.

Jesus: Uh. Ok.

Oh that cheeky Jesus! ;)

CS-

It is a problem. Plain and simple. When someone constantly is telling you throughout your childhood that you are going to hell, that you and everyone in your family and everyone that looks like you is a sinner, is doomed etc. then it is a pretty big fucking deal. I don't expect you to understand why, but I will say that you have no right to tell us to "shut up and move on". What if I came around you everyday and got in your face pointing out how stupid and and out of touch with reality your lifestyle is? Would that be OK?

The funniest part was that it was always these blue-collar, uneducated housewives and rednecks calling me and my physician parents "ignorant" and misguided. The irony was always completely lost on them; they usually had never left the country and couldn't fathom that there was a whole world where non-Christian people lived without spontaneously combusting due to the weight of their sin.

Since as some would have it here, I am genetically inclined to call most of you kaffirs, being a Muslim, I have a question thats not directly related to the post but indirectly related.

Do some of you have problems with this kid of comment due to the let's say simple rudeness and the implications of the comment only? Or is that many of you don't hold your own inherited religous beliefs strongly or don't care much about the varied theologies of Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism? (I focus on Hinduism because it seems like most people responding are Hindu)

Being Muslim, when I have encountered a situation like this, I usually say something about the Trinity not being coherent and other theological arguments which gets them angry or introspective.Most Hindu cats I know don't seem to really be concerned with their religion. The only Hindus I knew that consistently went to temple were Guyanese and Trini. Would it be accurate for me to say that most of you range from secular to agnostic to athiest? Also, most of you don't know the theology of religio/philosophical ideas of Hinduism well enough to debate?

I hope my tone doesn't come off as arrogant but I couldnt think of a better way to word what Im thinking.

Would it be accurate for me to say that most of you range from secular to agnostic to athiest?

This is probably only somewhat accurate as a whole. Speaking for myself, it is wholly accurate. Its a nice feature that allows us secular, thinking people to not go around blowing ourselves and others up in the name of a fairy tale.

SemiDesiMasala

I'd be totally suprised if she knew that Jesus was not only Jewish (but also a rabbi).

Anyways, here's a really funny story about the lack of knowledge that he was Jewish (and a rabbi to boot). There is an English Prof who gives (at least 10 years ago was giving) amazing tours of the Chartres church in France. He has spent his life studying the church and writing about and also creating documentaries about it. He told us that on one of the documentaries on Channel 4 in UK, he talks about Jesus' background including the fact he was jewish (and all the jewish stuff that is in Christainity including the fact that early christians had to get circumcized to convert to Christianity and obviously why this custom was quickly dropped with great relief to all the men converting over).

So after this particular documentary aired, the TV channel was flooded with calls about "the nonsense of Jesus being a Jew and what an idiot that person on the documentary was!!!!!

sp

As a born and raised Minnesotan Hindu who is just now getting out and about the rest of this country, I am glad that Satveer is making such a good example of a Hindu who is engaged in the civic processes of his community, rather than just critiquing how messed up the US, American and/or basic Western culture is.

I am learning that regardless of your faith, others will always try to pull you down when they are jealous of how they perceive your position in the community relative to theirs. There is a difference between being a civic individual and being one who finger points to get attention. Most of us unfortunately fall into the second category, and are folks who (like Kenyandesi keeps alluding to) can’t let misguided venting of the ignorant pass…

It is a problem. Plain and simple. When someone constantly is telling you throughout your childhood that you are going to hell, that you and everyone in your family and everyone that looks like you is a sinner, is doomed etc. then it is a pretty big f****** deal.

I agree. It absolutely crushed my feelings when a high school "friend" once told me that it was impossible for me to be biracial and that I had to "pick" either my American side or my Indian side and that he thought I should pick the American side because if I chose to embrace being Indian (and in my case also learn about Hinduism), I would go straight to hell. He also firmly believed that Gandhi was going to hell because he wasn't a christian. He was completely ignorant. He also tried to convince my biology teacher that the male skeleton has a rib missing on one side because the rib was taken to make eve.

It made me angry and things like that certainly still hurt my feelings but I've sort of accepted that there are a great many people like that in this world and I will have to put up with them from time to time.

Ghazali:

I am well aware of the nuances of my religion (the differences of various school of thoughts, etc), but I dont have time/patience/desire to debate with a stranger. In other words, I dont need to prove that I am superior because I am not taught to believe that other faiths are inferior.

To give a crude/nonreharsed example: Supposed you sneezed (due to dust) on subway and someone offered you cold medicine when you know you're not cold, do you hold your next sneeze just to prove that you dont have cold? When I am not willing to accept an assumption at a "base/bodily" level, how do you make an assumption about my spiritual level?

Comprehendo?

"couldn't fathom that there was a whole world where non-Christian people lived without spontaneously combusting due to the weight of their sin."

chuckle.:)

I have no problem with the e-mail, other than I disagree with the contents. I'd feel the same way if Ms. Anderson asked Mr. Chaudury to become an enviromentalist. But of course, the prevailing opinion is that religion is a private matter and should not be part of the public discourse. I disagee. Religion is a public matter and should be up for debate just like every other subject. Many great politicians, like MLK and Reagan, tryed to impose their religious beliefs on others. As gandhi, who i ususally don't agree with, once said...if you don't think religion is political, you understand neither. (i can't find this quote on the web so maybe i'm wrong)

He also tried to convince my biology teacher that the male skeleton has a rib missing on one side because the rib was taken to make eve.

Being Muslim, when I have encountered a situation like this, I usually say something about the Trinity not being coherent and other theological arguments which gets them angry or introspective.Most Hindu cats I know don't seem to really be concerned with their religion. The only Hindus I knew that consistently went to temple were Guyanese and Trini. Would it be accurate for me to say that most of you range from secular to agnostic to athiest? Also, most of you don't know the theology of religio/philosophical ideas of Hinduism well enough to debate?

I would say your statement is completely false. I would be more than willing to debate with you, anytime anyplace.

Sakshi,

But the rib should be missing only in Adam's skeleton, no?

;) his reasoning skills were in need of improvement. (wink wink)

Sonya,

So after this particular documentary aired, the TV channel was flooded with calls about "the nonsense of Jesus being a Jew and what an idiot that person on the documentary was!!!!!

That is HI-larious!!! They don't seem to get the absudity that if Jesus was Christian, he would be worshiping himself!! Funny. :)

Comprehendo?

Wow! This IS amazing. The she thinks its an acceptable way to respond. That some evangelizing sounds good. That evangelizing is the appropriate civic response when its time to concede. And if winning here is not important was was she, pray, in the race to begin with?

CS,
Yes it is a big deal because it points to a fundamental difference in which religions permit their followers to behave. As Kritic points out, Abrahamic faiths by default require evangelizing, if not outright proselytization and conversion, because they are monopolistic. There's only one right answer and followers are encouraged to act based on that belief. Hence this drivel about 'save the heathens', or 'kill the infidel', or unsolicited praying etc. are not just inconsequential noise, it often sets core state polity at a very deep level - observe throughout the last 2000yrs. Also, the monopolistic claim to 'right-ness' allows followers to interpret any behaviors (such as the drivel above) as permissive and true to faith. Quite simply, what you call noise is a symtom of basic intolerance. It may just be a crap email now, it was once the basis of inquisitions and crusades. This is why its a big deal.

Ghazali,
Prasad's post #43 basically states what I feel. If indeed your inquiry is honest, following is what I think:
Reading your post, I interpret as being written from the baseline of how you read/see/follow your faith. Because Hinduism is pluralist, and sees the world as 'there is one truth, sages see it in different ways', I see your question coming from perhaps following your faith from one definitive source, with more or less literal interpretation (I could be wrong, but its based on my experience on friendships with self-described devout Muslims). Not decreeing the correctness of only one specific thing/concept/writing like in Islam does not mean a dilution of belief or indiffernce towards faith in Hinduism. Since Hinduism readily recognizes the possibility of multiple paths, and indeed umbreallas many variant paths itself, requires no more than benign indifference toward other paths from its followers. As Hindu, I really don't care much about varied theologis of the various religions, or even within Hinduism. I am simply content to follow the path within it that makes sense to me WITHOUT evangelist onslaught, and believe such is the right of every other person. If I have interest in learning about other thoughts, it does not make me any less of a follower of Hinduism.

Going to Temple is another thing - going to the Mosque or Church is clearly of more import to the respective religions. Temples are important, but not AS important. A Hindu can have a shrine if he/she pleases, inside their home, or car, or whatever. Or not at all. Physical expression has no relationship to inner feeling of faith unlike some other religions.

By 'most of you' do you mean people on this board, or Hindus in general? There are like a billion Hindus give or take so most would mean about 1/2 a billion. I'm pretty sure the majority of Hindus would be able to debate the practical theology of their religion. I say practical because again, given the expanse of religious/spiritual thought Hinduism covers, and given that most Hindus cover a small subset of it, Hindus will debate from the philosophy they follow.

This kinda crap makes me want to take paint to my white skin. Absolutely ridiculous.

Comprehendo? What language is this

its 'comprendo' , spanish for "(you) understand"

I took an Art In Religion class in college. I once heard from the teaching assistant* that "you have to be born a Hindu and converting is not allowed or accepted." He said some Brahmin told him that. That kinda runs contrary to what my Hindu friends and family say... So wassup with that? Anybody know the truth to it? Or was he just tryin' to holla at yours truly by perpetratin like a mothafucker?

*arrogant white guy looking to impress this so-called exotic latina with his 'eastern knowledge'

you have to be born a Hindu and converting is not allowed or accepted

one form of hinduism (most hindus around here are white converts to the krishnas).

this is america. or at least parts of it. no big surprise, evangelicals 'witness' to everyone who isn't evangelical. i've had catholic friends encouraged to convert to 'christianity' in mississipi.

I took an Art In Religion class in college. I once heard from the teaching assistant* that "you have to be born a Hindu and converting is not allowed or accepted." He said some Brahmin told him that. That kinda runs contrary to what my Hindu friends and family say... So wassup with that? Anybody know the truth to it? Or was he just tryin' to holla at yours truly by perpetratin like a mothafucker?

This is true according to the way I was raised, but there are some factions that disagree, especially newer sects that embrace foreign devotees. I still believe it to be true myself.

btw, this is fundamentally about different boundaries. myself, i have no problem with evangelicals witnessing to me once. but if i keep an acquaintance or friendship with them i tell them that i don't like my time being wasted and i'll give them just one shot so their conscious is salved. if they persist, i simply tell them what i think of their delusion and they don't usually bring it up again. the american radical protestant zeitgeist is strange. most european christians, muslims, hindus, jews, etc. are not comfortable with it. but it isn't like we can ignore 1/3 of the population or pass non-proslyetization laws. so simply develop interpersonal strategies. if you are a public person like satveer not interacting with these sorts is not an option.

most european christians, muslims, hindus, jews, etc. are not comfortable with it.

Uh...this American Orthodox Christian is very uncomfortable with it.

this American Orthodox Christian is very uncomfortable with it

good point. i think there are regional differences within america about this sort of thing. g.w. bush's dad grew up episcopalian in connecticut and never really grokked evangelicals because it seemd weird to talk about personal faith. g.w. bush grew up in part in texas and he's mastered their lingo.

Echoing nik (39), Lokayata philosophy is considered to be a part of hinduism, but is also atheistic. Popular hinduism is based mostly on practice. I have been an atheist--perhaps the correct term is teapot agnostic-- most of my life, but I have also been always considered Hindu (no contradiction there, unlike in monotheistic faiths). Like nik said, life is far too short to be spent arguing about the relative superiority of fairy tales.

Abrahamic faiths by default require evangelizing, if not outright proselytization and conversion

Not necessarily. Judaism, the original Abrahamic faith, does not require evangelizing. It actually provides for a different way for non-Jews to be "good people", by following a different set of rules. I'm not saying it's not elitist to consider yourself God's chosen people, but they don't generally believe that others are doomed to hell or even think that they need to follow the same rules for living a good life.

As a Hindu, I think I have a fairly good grasp of the theological subtleties of my religion. I, like others who have pointed this out, don't feel like getting in a theological argument with people who want to convert me. I'm polite to them because some of them actually believe they are doing me a favor (Mormons are a case in point) and are not trying to act superior. I do think though that a not conceding an election loss is a highly inappropriate place to proselytize.

I once heard from the teaching assistant that "you have to be born a Hindu and converting is not allowed or accepted." He said some Brahmin told him that. That kinda runs contrary to what my Hindu friends and family say... So wassup with that? Anybody know the truth to it?

I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but my understanding is that there is a minority of Hindus that don't accept converts. From what I recall, these are mostly orthodox Brahmins, so my interpretation is that they are averse to conversion because it upsets the social order.

Of course, given Hinduism's plural beliefs, there is no one way to convert and there is no one authority on who may or may not convert. Some organisations do have programmes to help people interested in converting, but very few, if any, actively try to pursue converts or evangelise.

My experience has been that most Hindus will welcome converts, though some may do so with a bit of curiousity. Of course, it's not always easy, given the cultural and linguistic barriers. Nonetheless, converts can become involved, respected, and influential within a local community (I can think of at least one example near where I live).

I suppose one caveat is that my experiences come from living outside India. Outside of India, most Hindus are a minority and need to assimilate into the local society. As such, given as they are `outsiders' most of the time, they may be more accepting of `outsiders' trying to blend into their own niche.

Manju --

I have no problem with the e-mail, other than I disagree with the contents.

What about the entire, overall context of conceding defeat in an email like that? What would your reaction be if a Democrat conceded with an equal and opposite email (perhaps, for example, by expressing some condescending disdain for the more conservative candidate's religious views or lifestyle in some way)? I'm not entirely sure that I would regard it all that favorably, even if I agreed with its contents even to some minimal extent.

Not necessarily. Judaism, the original Abrahamic faith, does not require evangelizing. It actually provides for a different way for non-Jews to be "good people", by following a different set of rules. I'm not saying it's not elitist to consider yourself God's chosen people, but they don't generally believe that others are doomed to hell or even think that they need to follow the same rules for living a good life.

many christian denominations hold to this view. even the catholic church has generally come around to the view that salvation is possible outside of the church, though it may be more difficult or less certain (generally the "out" is that one may be a christian without knowing one is a christian or something like that, since no one can really know for sure except god about such things). most mainline and liberal churches have also stopped active evangelization.

even the catholic church has generally come around to the view that salvation is possible outside of the church, though it may be more difficult or less certain (generally the "out" is that one may be a christian without knowing one is a christian or something like that, since no one can really know for sure except god about such things). most mainline and liberal churches have also stopped active evangelization.

Most of the old mainline protestant churches - e.g., Episcopalians, are really not all that different from liberal Hinduism. Even Methodists have come around to this view. They sell the Bhagavad Gita at the bookstore at St. Bart's in Manhattan. UU Churches celebrate Diwali And they are all dying.

Whats the big deal? She just politely asked him a question. there was no force involved, no threat of riots or pogroms.
Which is more than what can be said about the Shiv Sena, RSS, Bajrang Dal , Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other such representatives of the most 'tolerant' Hindu religion. Christians are facing overt, physical intimidation across vast swathes of India and here you have Hindus crowing about tolerance. I know first hand accounts of systematic, official (police/ govt) backed persecution in Orissa, Bihar, MP, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. I have a Dalit friend who is a Christian by belief, but did not convert 'officially' becuase he will lose reservation benefits. Sometimes, its good to keep things in perspective.
Being a minority in non Christian majority country is rarely pleasant.

Christians are facing overt, physical intimidation across vast swathes of India and here you have Hindus crowing about tolerance.

That does not justify treating religious minorities in this country badly. That's like saying, "Jews and Christians are persecuted in Muslim countries; therefore, Muslims in America have no right to complain if they're detained, interned, or shipped off to Guantanamo."

Thanks for the info guys. You know, when I lived with a desi family, I didn't really see Hinduism as that much different from my catholic,latino sensibility.

The Cuban and Boriquenno side of my family practice a catholic/west african syncretism not too different than Hinduism. I never felt like they were at odds.

This is the worst form of bigotry, IMO. Wrapped in all the soul saving talk.

Bidi (#37), it doesn't matter whether those trying to sermonise you are "better" on the social ladder than you are. It is disrespectful of the other, plain and simple.

Thank God Satveer Choudhury isn't an atheist!

Desishiksa, Razib, Desitude,
Thanks for pointing out, I stand corrected re: Judaism. But what you say about some christian denominations, is that their official position? That it is ok to not evangelize? My understanding has been that its part of the faith. I KNOW this especially about Catholics, from a father at my missionary school, that to tell others about their lord and savior is a duty of every catholic. Razib your note about the 'out' doesn't really state a more permissive or potentially pluralistic position by the Catholic Church.

IC,
Most of the current rhetoric from all the organizations you cite didn't exist before active even aggressive proselytization efforts by various christian denominations in Indian backwaters. Not condoning their methods. But their behavior is a crude way to shore up defenses against what not only they but most Hindus see as poaching. BTW, most Hindus do not support them, else you'd have seen landslide victory for the BJP or more militant orgs across India.

I don't see how your Dalit friend fits into this discussion. He's basically playing both sides of the fence, and lacks enough conviction to join all other 'un-reserved' so-called upper castes by claiming his faith and losing the reservation. (so-called because in today's India they are turning into the untouchables. If you are poor, and you're 'un-reserved' you're basically screwed and are defaulted to a life of poverty. This includes not just brahmins who seem to be despised these days as desi Nazis, but others like kshatriyas and vaishs).

At any rate, the big deal is that the email was highly inappropriate and off-topic. And she lacked civility and politeness also, otherwise she'd have simply made a phone call and stayed on topic.

But what you say about some christian denominations, is that their official position? That it is ok to not evangelize?

yes. that is what my friends who are congregationalist (united church of christ) were taught in sunday school at least. many of the more liberal mainline churches don't exactly have a fixed catechism :)

Razib your note about the 'out' doesn't really state a more permissive or potentially pluralistic position by the Catholic Church.

if you say so.

there are over 1 billion catholics. there is a lot of diversity in there. after vatican II i am pretty sure it is official church policy that salvation is possible outside of the church (read this).

religions evolve. that is there nature. to say that evangelization is fundamental to x is always debatable. some hindus say it is impossible to convert, while other hindus go out and preach to the world. some christians believe it is their mission to witness to the world, while others now believe that god speaks to all people through the various traditions. the emphases within local religious traditions might differ, but the reality of variation is undeniable. operationally we may speak of generalities in regards to religion, but i think it is important to keep in mind taht fundamentally religion is shaped by the believers.

religions evolve. that is there nature. to say that evangelization is fundamental to x is always debatable. some hindus say it is impossible to convert, while other hindus go out and preach to the world. some christians believe it is their mission to witness to the world, while others now believe that god speaks to all people through the various traditions. the emphases within local religious traditions might differ, but the reality of variation is undeniable.

Absolutely! What I was saying before about my grandma's African/Catholic syncretism is a prime example of religion evolving. I've even seen pictures of Shiva and Krishna on some catholic latino/catholic Haitian home altars.

My personal favorite is my grandma's altar with the statues of Yemoja (the black, Cubana virgin) next to a crucifix attached with dried roses and coins to a 3 foot high poster of Derek Jeter. Gotta love it!

to me the most amusing religious story, when vasco da gama reached kerala he was on the way to meet to the king, but when he saw some brahmins he rushed over to doff his hat, as he assumed they were christian priests from their appearance and he wanted to pay his respects.

Wait, so Catholics AREN'T going to Hell? Whew. That's a relief.

pied piper:

What about the entire, overall context of conceding defeat in an email like that?

you're right, she's being impolite and impolitic. i didn't think of that but i don't think the objections to what she wrote revovles around her lack of grace. it's that she had the audacity to talk religion in the public sphere. If she asked her opponent to embrace some of her political ideas i'm sure it would raise a few eyebrows, but would not get quite this reponse. i think religion should be debated more, especially since more and more any criticism of religion is being labled bigotry...and religion is becoming increasingly racialized.

btw, i don't mind a little imploliteness, i always like nixons's "you won't have richard nixon to kick around anymore" line after he lost the california governers race sometime in the mid-60's.

My personal favorite is my grandma's altar with the statues of Yemoja (the black, Cubana virgin) next to a crucifix attached with dried roses and coins to a 3 foot high poster of Derek Jeter.

Now that's authentic! Nuff respect to Abuela Diesel!

Wait, so Catholics AREN'T going to Hell? Whew. That's a relief.

my old colllege housemate, a southern protestant, thought dead babies go to hell b/c they haven't embraced jesus yet.

Seeker:

Most of the current rhetoric from all the organizations you cite didn't exist before active even aggressive proselytization efforts by various christian denominations in Indian backwaters. Not condoning their methods. But their behavior is a crude way to shore up defenses against what not only they but most Hindus see as poaching. BTW, most Hindus do not support them, else you'd have seen landslide victory for the BJP or more militant orgs across India.

My point is to point out the irony that so many Hindus here whine and complain about the slightest perceived insults but a chose to condone violent acts of rape/murder and physical intimidation conducted in the name of defending 'Hinduism'. It’s all OK if it is in defense of the faith right. Of course, before the missionaries showed up, those people whose souls we are fighting over were outcastes, fair game for the worst form of societal institutionalized discrimination in human history.

All religions have their faults. I responded with some indignation in my previous comments after reading some of the nauseatingly self congratulatory comments here where Hindus claim the moral high ground by pointing out how 'tolerant' the religion is on matters of doctrine. This may be true, but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.

I don't see how your Dalit friend fits into this discussion. He's basically playing both sides of the fence, and lacks enough conviction to join all other 'un-reserved' so-called upper castes by claiming his faith and losing the reservation. (so-called because in today's India they are turning into the untouchables. If you are poor, and you're 'un-reserved' you're basically screwed and are defaulted to a life of poverty. This includes not just brahmins who seem to be despised these days as desi Nazis, but others like kshatriyas and vaishs).

You are being disingenuous here my friend. If you grew up in India, you know that a Dalit still faces discrimination in a Hindu dominated society, no matter what his religion. Converting to Christianity or Buddhism hardly changes his plight economically. He still needs reservations in education and jobs. Conversion is an act of defiance, symbolically rejecting a religion that justifies institutional discrimination based on birth. It hardly helps a Dalit economically, in fact he is worse off as he is cut off from all reservation.

This may be true, but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.

I guess you are forgetting the entire history of slavery in Americas, and Africa, and its close link/ relationship to organized Christianity. Wait a minute, the entire colonization of South America. Remember, Afican American slaves were also Christians. How about 1000s of years of Christianity-Judiasm hate on each other.

Do you know the history of Irish conflict? Or Serbia.

Disclaimer: By no means, I am putting Hinduism or any religion on a moral high ground or demeaning them but we need to be fair/ rigorous in a scholarly discourse. Please note that. Sometimes, it is better off to be careful about being factual or just not make bombastic statements. You would have been better off just calling those commenters on their incomplete analysis (or ignornance) rather using words like "MOST repressive" without much thought.

I am very skeptical about the claims of "Hinduism being open to plural opinions." I think people are blurring the lines between what constitutes a "religion" and what constitutes a "civilization." I don't agree that "Hinduism" is a religion the same way we categorize "Islam" or "Christianity" as a religion. I think when most people say "Hinduism" they mean the "various religious cults/beleifs that have developed in the sub-continent over centuries." To take this historical fact and lazily label it "Hinduism" and present it as a "unified whole" is a bit misleading. For example, the evolution of Buddhism although somewhat rooted in Sanatana Dharma, posed a threat religiously and politically to the caste based Hindu system and had to be "Brahmanised" to be accepted again.

I think we also have to consider the contemporary context as well. This "plurality" claim seems to be another example of what some Hindu intellectuals put forth as a "definitive statement" as a sort of "modern apologetic" (I hate this term but can't think of anything better)In the 1800s, many Hindu intellectuals wanted to argue that "Hinduism" was "monotheistic in essence." Now it seems like "plurality" has been the buzzword given the rise of postmodernist critiques of grand narratives in academia. Like I said, that there are various truth claims within the sub-continent of India and that many of them share themes and deities is not questioned by me, but that all these conflicting views form one "religion" is I think not accurate. All these varying views constitute one "civilization" is more accurate. Just because the breadth of religio/philosophical thinking is diverse across a geographic space, doesn't mean they can be all grouped together and presented as one with no problems.

Also, as somebody pointed out Judaism does not proselytise either. However, that lack of proseltyisation doesnt reveal some sort of "inherent liberalism" but really a sense of "elitism." Hinduism is tied up with a specific region of the world, namely India and the people who have spread it from India. That many Hindus have a "racialist" view of themselves with non-Hindus is known and well documented. It makes sense that the far right Hindutva is into race theory and genetic arguments and look up to Hitler.That their language about Muslims and Christians revolve around "purity/impurity." They are just an extreme variation on the racial elitism that has its place in Hindu civilization.

I have a Dalit friend who is a Christian by belief, but did not convert 'officially' becuase he will lose reservation benefits.

Hmmm, so one could argue that the reservation policies serve to keep dalits within the hindu fold. Let all the brahmins whining about reservations ponder over that.

If dalits ever converted en masse to christianity and buddhism their oppression in India would become a case of religious persecution, instead of an internal matter in a hopelessly backward society. That certainly would draw widespread international condemnation of hindus I wager.

Of course, before the missionaries showed up, those people whose souls we are fighting over were outcastes, fair game for the worst form of societal institutionalized discrimination in human history. All religions have their faults......but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.

No doubt about that. Hinduism is tolerant, perhaps too tolerant, of modes of worship of divinity (think of the aghori cannibals, the child-sacrificing kali worshippers and so on); but its caste system is brutal.

IC:

I responded with some indignation in my previous comments after reading some of the nauseatingly self congratulatory comments here where Hindus claim the moral high ground by pointing out how 'tolerant' the religion is on matters of doctrine.

My point is to point out the irony that so many Hindus here whine and complain about the slightest perceived insults

but a chose to condone violent acts of rape/murder and physical intimidation conducted in the name of defending 'Hinduism'.

And no one here is condoning violent acts committed in the name of defending hinduism. But at the same time remember that this violence is a very recent development in hinduism, and not part of its culture. The christian minority in India has lived and flourished in India for many centuries. The violence you mention started only in the 1980s with the rise of 'hindutva'.

Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.

That many Hindus have a "racialist" view of themselves with non-Hindus is known and well documented. It makes sense that the far right Hindutva is into race theory and genetic arguments and look up to Hitler

Its always amusing to watch dark-skinned desis subscribing to euro-centric racial theories. Sadly amusing actually.

As for christians evangelizing, I always welcome that opportunity to try to free them from their misguided cult. So should you all. Just ask them a few simple, pointed questions and then watch them squirm:

1. Why does your God need blood sacrifice? (This primitive, utterly indefensible belief is the very foundation of christianity.)

2. Why will your God torture for all eternity good, virtuous men like Gandhi, Zoroaster, Confucius, the Greek Philosophers and billions of others? A true, good and loving God would never punish virtuous men would he? (This argument can also be used against muslims, because they subscribe to the same insane belief)

3. Why did Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount if he was only meant to be a blood sacrifice? Either he was a Teacher or a sacrificial scapegoat for your sins; he cant be both can he?

4. How can the blood of an innocent victim atone for your sins? Isnt that absurd?

5. Why is the Sermon on the Mount so similar to the buddhist Dhammapada? (Christianity as we know it is actually a Pauline perversion and has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, which are actually similar to the teachings of Buddha and advaita vedanta).

6. Why are you foolishly awaiting an external Kingdom of God when Jesus himself taught that the Kingdom of God is within you?

And so on....

Welcome debate, because none of the abrahamic faiths can withstand rational, or even moral, scrutiny.

let's not resort to the same tactics that we are appalled by in this story. state senator chaudhary has responded in a very civil manner, and this will only reflect well on him. jumping on "inconsistencies" in another's religion is not what chaudary would want his supporters to do.

That their language about Muslims and Christians revolve around "purity/impurity."

muslims and christians have their own conceptions (or in the case of christians in the west, had) of purity and impurity. it is simply more explicitly religious rather than racial.

e.g., q: is it permissible to take food from idolaters?

Sadly amusing actually.

aren't you "offended and insulted even"? perhaps you should educate yourself!

It’s all OK if it is in defense of the faith right. Of course, before the missionaries showed up, those people whose souls we are fighting over were outcastes, fair game for the worst form of societal institutionalized discrimination in human history.

Christianity in India is rife with the most vicious caste discrimination. I would argue that the principal reason it has not done particularly well in India (despite the tall claims) is precisely because Dalits see the hypocrisy for what it is. Its interesting how quickly an Indian Christian like IC decides that we, American Hindus, are really the enemy, and should bear the sins of our forefathers? South Asianism, anyone? :)

Presently in India, more than 70% of Christians are Dalits, but the higher caste Christians (30% by estimates) control 90% of the churches administrative jobs [1]. Out of the 156 bishops, only 6 are from lower castes. [23] [22]

Christian churches in India are largely controlled by upper caste Priests and nuns. Low-caste Dalit Christians are discriminated against by the upper-caste Christians. The extent and practice of untouchability within the Indian Christian community have been researched. Chapels for Dalit Christians are often segregated from Christians of a higher caste. Other churches admit Dalit Christians, but keep separate pews for them. Dalit Christians are buried in separate cemeteries. In addition, Dalit boys are not allowed to be altar boys or lectors.In addition, there are various instances of economic discrimination where Dalit Christians are not allowed to own arable land by upper caste Christian clergy. In many Christian communities in India, bonded labor is still practiced. As a consequence of the discrimination, Dalit Christians tend to be very poor and undernourished. Dalit Christians are denied education by the Upper Caste Priests and nuns. Very few Dalit Christians are involved in administrative services, except for the few who reconverted back to Hinduism [24]. There exists evidence to show that Christian individuals have mobility within their respective castes.[25]

This may be true, but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.

LOL. If this is not a trollish statement, I don't know what is :-) Some people think Christianity is the greatest abomination the world has known - Voltaire, Nietzche, many Enlightenment thinkers and philosophes and more recently Peter Watson, author of the magisterial Ideas:

On the other hand, not all big ideas are good ideas. In fact, most big ideas are probably terrible ideas. What do you think is the single worst idea in history?

Without question, ethical monotheism. The idea of one true god. The idea that our life and ethical conduct on earth determines how we will go in the next world. This has been responsible for most of the wars and bigotry in history.

yes. that is what my friends who are congregationalist (united church of christ) were taught in sunday school at least. many of the more liberal mainline churches don't exactly have a fixed catechism :)

This is true. A methodist minister friend helped us a few years ago protest the raging insurgency fomented by Baptist ultras in the Northeast of India. He thought some of their activities were unconscionable. I asked him whether he thought I could be saved - he said yes, pick any one Hindu God and worship him/her with devotion, and lead an ethical life, and you too will enjoy heaven. I clicked my heals, doffed my hat, and wished a good day to him.

“To get a sermon is definitely a surprise,” Chaudhary told WCCO. (Perhaps he should write back:

I have been reading Emerson in my Hindu study circle of late. The great sage of Concord (Harold Bloom says Emerson is to America what Dr. Johnson is to England and Goethe is to Germany--the national sage)

In this point of view we become very sensible of the first defect of historical Christianity. Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion. As it appears to us, and as it has appeared for ages, it is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal, the positive, the ritual. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus. The soul knows no persons. It invites every man to expand to the full circle of the universe, and will have no preferences but those of spontaneous love. Did someone say tat tvam asi?

Incidentally, I think the Emersonian strain informs what is best in the American spiritual sensibility, and is still the great foil to Global Evangelism, Incorporated.

Ghazali:

Like I said, that there are various truth claims within the sub-continent of India and that many of them share themes and deities is not questioned by me, but that all these conflicting views form one "religion" is I think not accurate. All these varying views constitute one "civilization" is more accurate. Just because the breadth of religio/philosophical thinking is diverse across a geographic space, doesn't mean they can be all grouped together and presented as one with no problems.

Sadly amusing actually.

aren't you "offended and insulted even"? perhaps you should educate yourself!

Bingo!

5. has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, which are actually similar to the teachings of Buddha and advaita vedanta).

From a scholarly perspective, its not at all clear that Jesus actually existed. The whole of Jesus's "history" is based on a few tenuous corroborating statements. In my opinion he is a composite figure, with obvious inputs from the Greek mystery religions. There are several mainstream scholars who subscribe to the "No Jesus" school of thought - Robert M. Price is one of them. The problem is that the acadedmy is littered with sentimentalist ex-Christians like most of the characters at the Jesus Seminar who need, probably for deeply held psychological reasons, to assert that he existed, though they obviously deny any claims to his "divinity."

Speaking as an Indian christian (Syro-Malabar), i don't think i've ever noticed any sort of disrimination, overt or otherwise.

Regarding Ms Anderson's comments, they're patronising, though (and this is the sad part) perhaps well-meant, and I'd ignore it. I'd find it rude, simply because I think religion is a private matter, and so I'd resent other people's intrusion on a private part of my life.

That being said - I'd agree with CS that it's not really that big a deal - a low-level annoyance, but one that's to be shrugged off and ignored.

risible, but we'll get into semantic disputes here. for many christians a historical jesus without the divinity is not jesus. personally, i find in quite plausible that a reformist rabbi in the mode of hillel existed in early 1st century palestine around whom a cult following developed and who became transformed into jesus.

none of the abrahamic faiths can withstand rational, or even moral, scrutiny.

Religious faith in general does not withstand rational scrutiny. People are not entirely rational beings, and religious faith, like falling in love, fills an emotional need. I don't think Hinduism withstands scrutiny any better than any other religion. I persist in believing in god despite a lack of any substantive proof of the existence of a divinity. I don't think there is anything to be gained from having a supposed rational argument about someone's religious faith--they believe because they do. When people proselytize, I believe I have the moral high ground when I ignore them or politely ask them to stop, not when I try to talk them out of their faith believing that mine is more "rational".

Do some of you have problems with this kid of comment due to the let's say simple rudeness and the implications of the comment only? Or is that many of you don't hold your own inherited religous beliefs strongly or don't care much about the varied theologies of Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism? (I focus on Hinduism because it seems like most people responding are Hindu)

LOL.. I just watched this video of Zakir Naik.. (a famouls Muslim preacher from Mumbai, India).. It is funny..
Zakir naik on mathematics.. It echoes your statement.. Basically he claims that Saudi arabia preventing non-Muslim worship is right when compared to non-Muslim countries allowing Muslim worship..

Manju --

i don't think the objections to what she wrote revovles around her lack of grace. it's that she had the audacity to talk religion in the public sphere.

Well, my objections do -- I actually view these as interrelated and rather difficult to separate. (And I think that "lack of grace" is putting it too mildly.) Even if it's appropriate in the abstract to discuss religion in the public sphere, there's something that definitely isn't appropriate about what she is doing so here. A private, condescending email in lieu of a private concession phone call is hardly a discussion of religion "in the public sphere." And "appropriateness" aside, the fact that she has the audacity to act -- rather comfortably -- in a way that is "impolite and impolitic," to use your words, says something about her respect for religious traditions other than her own, and perhaps about the place of non-Judeo-Christian traditions in American society more generally. (And as I suggested, my words would be a bit stronger than "impolite and impolitic" -- her email seems to be more about status and social equality than about etiquette.)

I might very well agree with some of where you are coming from at the most general and abstract levels about discussions of religion in the public sphere, but that's not what's going on here. Might your eagerness to be making those general points perhaps be pushing you to be a bit too charitable to Anderson herself? That's a genuine question for you, not a rhetorical one.

Her email was in fact a thinly veiled attempt to minimize and belittle her opponent's win by acting as if there was a larger purpose to life in which the election was insignificant and that he was missing the whole point, which is just plain obnoxious regardless of your religious beliefs or whether you think it's okay to proselytize.

Most Hindu cats I know don't seem to really be concerned with their religion. The only Hindus I knew that consistently went to temple were Guyanese and Trini. Would it be accurate for me to say that most of you range from secular to agnostic to athiest?

A hindu is not required to go to temple or worship images of god . It is only one of the way (Bhakti Yoga) .You may not even believe in God(as defined by Abrahamic religion) and still be Hindu .A person may be a Hindu but still doesn’t believe in God; a person may believe in God, but still not a Hindu and a person may a Hindu and believe in God.At the same time Hinduism is not synonymous with atheism either. If the Abrahamic criterion of belief in a God is used, then many of the popular Hindu personalities like Adi Sankaracharya, Dayananda Saraswati, Vivekananda, Ramana maharshi wont fit that criteria.

Also, most of you don't know the theology of religio/philosophical ideas of Hinduism well enough to debate?

Yes this is true .Most Hindus dont know philosophical ideas of hinduism .But they are not required to know this .Thats why there are different ways of getting liberation in Hinduism . Hinduism reognizes that different people need different way .Only a person who is following Jnana Yoga is required to know about philosphy .

I took an Art In Religion class in college. I once heard from the teaching assistant* that "you have to be born a Hindu and converting is not allowed or accepted." He said some Brahmin told him that. That kinda runs contrary to what my Hindu friends and family say... So wassup with that? Anybody know the truth to it? Or was he just tryin' to holla at yours truly by perpetratin like a mothafucker?

No you dont need to be born hindu . Arya Samajh convert persons of other religion into hinduism .But you are not required to do even that . You dont need to follow any scriptures even (as they only act as quidelines) .

It is very complex to define a Hindu . A true Hindu is that person, who endeavours to know that knowing which everything becomes known!

LOL.. I just watched this video of Zakir Naik.. (a famouls Muslim preacher from Mumbai, India).. It is funny.. Zakir naik on mathematics.. It echoes your statement.. Basically he claims that Saudi arabia preventing non-Muslim worship is right when compared to non-Muslim countries allowing Muslim worship..

Ponniyin Selvan Dont talk about prof Zakir Naik . he has found prophecy about prophet Mohammad (PBUH) even in Bhavisya puran . He also know about allah upnishad which we hindus dont know about . Shame on all hindus ;)

sakshi:
Well, it does make a difference because it is not true, at least not in the way you're describing it.

1. How religion played its part in Hindu civilization is not given any analysis in that broad statement. The fact that Indian religion had a much more monastic/ascetic aspect to it (in some cases, one can only be religous if one was ascetic)is not taken into account. Yes, there were ascetics in Christianity and Islam but it wasn't built into the system much as it was in Indian religous thought.There was space for political centralisation of religion. Any intro to Indian philosophy book talks about the "Ascetic" stage as being the final and(implied) best stage. So in a place where religion is h