I think some readers (if this cartoon gets exposure outside SAJA) wont get his point.. but instead conclude quite sensibly that fundamentalist hindus (by the way, I havent come across anyone who literally believes in earth being held up by turtles or cobras)are a lot worse than Huckabee and his ilk. They wont know that literal beliefs are peripheral to hinduism, unlike most readers here. Given the extreme caricature used here, this isnt offensive to me. More disturbing about the Huckster is his total innocence on foreign affairs (stating that pakistani illegal immigrants were a threat!).. Believing that the world started in 4004 BC is fine, comparitively.

I ll take the chap from Arkansas over any smooth talking Senator with a MidWest connection. At least he is honest about his 'crazy' beliefs. I d say USA and the world needs a 'battler' President - especially who ate squirrels.

Today’s cartoon responds to the generally respectful tone accorded Mike Huckabee, who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic.

Come on, it's not fair to call him a lunatic just because he doesn't believe that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. The poor man has never seen himself in a mirror.

Of course it's offensive. Reason being, the American public knows very little about Hinduism other than it's mythologolical underpinnings, and ancillary things like the practice of "sati."

I see the cartoonist is attempting to impugn Huckabee's "crazy" nature, by casting it as "fundamentalist" Hindu, but most of America is unaware of non-fundamentalist Hinduism (for examples, schools of logic: nyaya, schools of philosophy such as sankya and mimansa, etc..)

It insults Hinduism as much as it insults Hucakabee. (the latter of course, is worthy of insult)

And if you are Hindu (as I think a majority of our readers are), are you offended by this cartoon?

If the person is familiar with Hinduism more than what they learned from Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom, and they're not religiously sensitive, nope, it's not offensive. If it's intended for wide distribution to people who learned all they know about India from Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom (hereinafter referred to as "idiots"), I think hope the qualifiers "fundamentalist Hindu" and "2008 BC" are reasonable protection against desis being asked "Do you eat monkey brains?".

1) i don't think someone who rejects evolution is a 'lunatic.' as someone who is obsessed with evolutionary science it isn't a trivial concern of mine, but we need to keep these things in perspective.

2) as noted above, rall is presenting a confused caricature of what hindu fundamentalism is (if it even is). hinduism, or what he thinks it is, is just a means to his ends to get to the overall point that christian fundamentalism is less nutty or terrifying simply because it is familiar.

3) though this is not an invalid point, reality is much more complex than this. to be short about, fundamentalism is a very precise term which denotes the reaction against modernism in protestantism during the late 19th century. fundamentalism is also a very general term which is associated with retrograde/reactionary tendencies and appeals to scriptural literalism and religious authority. obviously rall is getting to the second of these issues, a big catchall term.

4) religions do have natural distributions. i think american fundamentalism in its dominionist incarnation can be quite strange and threatening. but most of the world's 'moderate' muslims arguably have huckabee's opinions, or even more conservative ones. if you are going to say that those who are creationists are lunatics, the majority of the world's muslims are probably lunatics (no objection here). i don't think though that most people want to go there, right? to some extent christianity is a castrated religion from where i stand (at least in the developed west). since the enlightenment we secularists have done a good job in beating it into the private realm, or defanging its exclusivist tendencies. most american evangelicals (this is what rall really means) are conservative, and they certainly do concern liberals concerned with issues such as gender equity and abortion rights. but,

5) most american evangelicals are not nearly as extreme as most muslim, and *perhaps* hindu, fundamentalists,** because their conservatism is normalized to the central tendency of the society. to give you an example, huckabee was happy about jamie lynn spears' decision to keep her baby. translate the social context to the muslim world, how do you think a muslim fundamentalist politician would react to an out of wedlock pregnancy of a prominent actress (assuming that he thinks actresses are not a totally haram profession?)?

5) the point is that we, who are secularists, are right to be concerned about the fundamentalists near us. but we should not transpose terminologies so promiscuously from society to society. one society's 'liberals' would seem 'conservative' to another, and, even in our own society the social liberals of the past would seem quite conservative and old fashioned today (which is why some social conservative activists like to cite people like elizabeth cady stanton to defend their viewpoints!).

6) the cautiousness of transposing terms is why i switched the focus from hindu to muslim fundamentalism, i think the way in which rall is imagining fundamentalism is more appropriate, in the generality, to abrahamic religions. my reading of the literature does suggest that a group of 'fundamentalist' hindus who are strongly influenced by dayananda saraswati exhibit the same tendencies as abrahamic religionists, but i don't think it is an equivalent phenomenon within hinduism.

** the conservatism of hindu or muslim or christian fundamentalists is, i think, normalized to their societies, not derivable in essence from their religions. so if hindus fundamentalists have extreme attitudes toward female chastity in line with muslims as opposed to looser attitudes (that is, no honor killing) among christians, that isn't because hinduism and islam are fundamentally similar, rather, the societies where the religions are expressed are similar. this makes sense when you note that honor killings occur among jordanian christians.

There was a very funny comment by a reader on Globeandmail.com's article discussing Huckabee's win. I paraphrase, "I find it somewhat disturbing that the american people are electing a president based on their perception of whether he is someone they would sit down with for a drink. I mean, it's all very good if you can play the banjo and shoot ducks, but how does that qualify you for the american presidency".

on another note, "Oh my god! Oh my god! Dont shoot. This is traumatizing".

Reg the use of hindu symbols and mythology, i dont consider it offensive. if rall is pissing on some of the practices like untouchability and sati, so what? i'm sure he'll follow it up with a piece on, "what if huckabee became president? 1. we will go back to trading slaves on new year's day because jesus is white and blue-eyed and all others are lower beings 2. women were carved out of adam's rib, so they are worth less and should stay at home and spew babies. 3. we should reward those who do school shootings because they're defending our constitutional right ot bear arms etc." all in a day's work.

This caricature would fit nicely with the notion that people in India come to work on elephants.

He can now go to work on an elephant :)

"I find it somewhat disturbing that the american people are electing a president based on their perception of whether he is someone they would sit down with for a drink....

bill clinton?

My objection to this cartoon is that the comparisons used by Rall in the ad are completely ridiculous and do not make sense even in the realm of caricature. The most orthodox Hindus I know do not hold the turtle theory as central to their world view, nor is casteism a central tenet of fundamentalist Hinduism - at least to the extent that I am aware.

I wonder (NOT!) why Rall didn't make the more obvious analogy to another religion of the book.

I find it somewhat disturbing that the american people are electing a president based on their perception of whether he is someone they would sit down with for a drink.

Especially ironic when the guy they elected is an ex alcoholic who is forbidden to touch the stuff. And, the reality doesn't live up to the fantasy, in any case.

who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic.

I'm glad someone said it.

Hindu fundamentalism is a fringe concept with few followers. There is however large numbers of Hindu fascists and they promote the Hindutva social order that threatens to destabilize India. The origin of their hate has more in common with the racialist pseudoscience of twentieth century European fascists than the literalism of Muslim and Christian fundamentalists. It's about blood and culture, not metaphysics/theology. The Left likes to refer to it as Hindu fundamentalism to maintain some symmetry that does not exist and spare the feelings of people who practice other religions. This cartoon was stupid and way of mark. Saffron types don't have a conflict with scientific "Big Questions", their problem is a lack of humanity and belief in collective guilt. Fascism vs. Fundamentalism is a distinction with a difference, well meaning progressives will continue to be irrelevant in the fight for justice in India as long as they continue to push this bogus comparison.

I don't think not believing in evolution is analogous to practices like untouchability and sati, especially as the former is still a dilemma today. I think the problem is that 'Hinduism' encapsulates a lot of different customs, especially when it comes to sati, which I believe was practiced mostly in the northwestern part of the subcontinent. I can understand the point that the cartoon is making, but as a Hindu, it stings a little because it's another reminder of what popular perceptions of Hinduism, which were originally (and still is) looked at through a very Western lens, are.

40-50% of Americans do not believe in evolution. The figure is even higher among self-identifying Christians. Up to a quarter of American's believe in the imminence of the Rapture. All this despite universal literacy and a mandatory primary education in the sciences. If Huckabee is a lunatic, then America is a lunatic asylum!

No offense taken by this hindu. I get what he's trying to say, but wish he got his hindu fundies right. Culturally this is as on point as Tom Wolfe's raps.

I would object to that portrayal being in, say, a mandatory textbook for little kids, but seems like fair game for political cartooning. The last frame made me laugh!

who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic.

All this despite universal literacy and a mandatory primary education in the sciences. If Huckabee is a lunatic, then America is a lunatic asylum!

I would be more respectful of faith. the two can co-exist but faith trumps logic any day. faith and fable help us get through the day, participate in society, rear kids. logic just helps us make money and keep us out of jail. i prefer faith any day. so do many americans i am sure - but if asked if they believe their god was borne of ancestry that's known to , they would balk.

who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic.

All this despite universal literacy and a mandatory primary education in the sciences. If Huckabee is a lunatic, then America is a lunatic asylum!

So what does Hindu fundamentalism (as opposed to Hindu fascism = Hindutva) entail?

exactly what louiecypher said re: fascism & fundamentalism. though do note that some of the salafi theories, such as sayyid qutb, come very close making islam and arab chauvinism toward the malwali coterminous.

ANNA's post: "However, I also cringed slightly at how Rall made his point."

Yup! The satire in the strip was completely lost on me as I struggled with Rall's overall exotification of Hinduism. I didn't see much difference between this and commercials in the past showing a woman with eight or ten arms peddling some product while sitar music plays in the background.

Nobody can fault Rall for his politically correct dalit and sati jokes, but the references to cobra and elephant, though obviously distorted for comic purposes, do make light of Hindu mythology in general. The green "Om" only shows Mr. Rall's lack of general knowledge. He is confusing it with the Islamic green crescent because, of course, all of us look alike.

The guy should be shot, figuratively speaking.

#6 Razib: "so if hindus fundamentalists have extreme attitudes toward female chastity in line with muslims as opposed to looser attitudes (that is, no honor killing) among christians, that isn't because hinduism and islam are fundamentally similar, rather, the societies where the religions are expressed are similar."

It takes a sharp mind to state the obvious. No, I am not being facetious, Razib. You are absolutely right in comment #6 about religious beliefs as being highly contextual and "normalized to the central tendency of the society." The West needs to apply this formula to its understanding of Islam in particular. (Hey Razib, I didn't forget about sending you my Dad's book for your critique. He is only halfway through.)

And Rahul, it is never a good idea to trust a politician who doesn't drink.

I feel that to take offense at Rail's attempt at satire is being overly sensitive - which is something we, as South Asians, are prone to doing. The same sort of distortions occur with regard to other religions, especially Islam and Christianity. To view this as an attack on Hinduism seems an over-reaction.

Ultimately, for people of faith - no matter what religion they follow - one does have to part with some aspects of rationality, which I guess is why it involves "faith"

in any case, if you are a devout hindu most people assume you believe all this, this just reinforces that notion. "thank god i am not religious" :). but i prefer to not see hinduism/indian culture mentioned in any context in america.

but it is so weird---sati, literal belief in creationism with elephants, cobras, etc (3 of 4 panes) is not in the books of any fundamentalist hindu organization i know of. kicking out muslims, yes. literal belief in ramayana, mahabharata, yes. untouchability, depends.

this cartoon would be about as funny as a cartoon in india saying americans believe in aliens---if there is no grain of truth in your joke, it is usually not funny. i think ted rall is just trying too hard.

I feel that to take offense at Rail's attempt at satire is being overly sensitive - which is something we, as South Asians, are prone to doing. The same sort of distortions occur with regard to other religions, especially Islam and Christianity. To view this as an attack on Hinduism seems an over-reaction.

i'm an atheist who has little sympathy for "offense" taken when people mock the non-existent (though some issues, like suttee and caste prejudice are serious and i think the conflation with a religion might not be so good because it muddles the serious issue), but let's be real, hindus have mythology and christians & muslims have beliefs. i think the double-standard will go on for a long time because hindus in the west don't have demographic and social pull. some primitive superstitions are privileged over others in public discourse and that's purely a function of numbers and familiarity (e.g., the substantively exotic nature of hindu beliefs vis-a-vis christianity as opposed to islam also makes it easy to mock since tropes about paganism are already handy).

i actually think that more offending religion would probably be good in the USA, so long as people are accurate in how they characterize said beliefs (not that there should be a law demanding accuracy). but as it is the sociological constraints mean there's going to be more blow-back for mocking christianity than hinduism or some other minority faith. if cartoonists like rall were really in it to make an impact they'd stir the real shit and take more direct aim at christianity as such, as opposed to the caricature of snake-handling bible-thumpers.

I feel that to take offense at Rail's attempt at satire is being overly sensitive - which is something we, as South Asians, are prone to doing

Maybe a few people here are taking offense at his comments about Hinduism, but as an atheist and somebody who enjoys a good joke, I am taking offense at his weak attempt at humor.

A caricature is usually funny if it has a basis in reality. You know, sort of like Chris Rock. Except he just says facts in a high pitched voice, something to the effect of "The police shot me because I'm a black man!". Some people find that edgy too, I guess. And maybe it was when he first started doing his routines.

You are absolutely right in comment #6 about religious beliefs as being highly contextual and "normalized to the central tendency of the society."

Yes and no. I guess the statement is true if you broaden the definition of "society" appropriately. Razib himself has made several comments in the past about the "ummah" nature of Islam which leads people to a very different conception of their idea and morality.

And Rahul, it is never a good idea to trust a politician who doesn't drink.

Floridian, you and Kasper Gutman, both. Although there's many other reasons to distrust a man too.

Gutman: We begin well, sir. I distrust a man who says 'when'. If he's got to be careful not to drink too much, it's because he's not to be trusted when he does. Well, sir, here's to plain speaking and clear understanding. [They drink.] You're a close-mouthed man.
Spade: No, I like to talk.
Gutman: Better and better. I distrust a close-mouthed man. He generally picks the wrong time to talk and says the wrong things. Talking's something you can't do judiciously unless you keep in practice. Now, sir, we'll talk if you like. I'll tell you right out - I'm a man who likes talking to a man who likes to talk.
Spade: Swell. Will we talk about the black bird?
Gutman': [chuckling] You're the man for me, sir. No beating about the bush, right to the point. Let's talk about the black bird, by all means. But first, answer me a question. Are you here as Miss O'Shaughnessy's representative?
Spade: Well, there's nothing certain either way. It depends.
Gutman: It depends on? Maybe it depends on Joel Cairo.
Spade: Maybe.
Gutman: The question is, then, which you represent. It'll be one or the other.
Spade: I didn't say so.
Gutman: Who else is there?
Spade: There's me.
Gutman: Ah. That's wonderful sir, wonderful. I do like a man who tells you right out he's looking out for himself. Don't we all? I don't trust a man who says he's not.

razib, it is interesting that you see Christianity as being less prone to attack and being mocked than other faiths. Ask any evangelical Christian and they would tell you that their faith is under constant attack.

Although I am a Christian by birth, I don't have the same sensitivity to these perceived "attacks" because ultimately I feel that if one's faith is well-grounded it should not matter what others think. But then my view and beliefs in the context of Christianity falls outside of the mainstream beliefs of most Christians and so I don't represent the norm in this regard.

Yes and no. I guess the statement is true if you broaden the definition of "society" appropriately. Razib himself has made several comments in the past about the "ummah" nature of Islam which leads people to a very different conception of their idea and morality.

right. i think one of the main issues at work with muslims in the west is that there are two tendencies, 1) to normalize to their societies of residence (some american muslims basically could be mainline protestants if you wrote a perl script do a search and replace on the terminology they use), 2) to normalize to the ummah as a whole, which is focused on the money coming out of the gulf countries to fund religious charities. my reading on say the chinese muslim community (the hui) suggests that modern travel and information technology is having the affect of pulling them further toward a set of beliefs and norms which are consonant across the middle east and into south asia, as opposed to their own indigenous tradition which justified their religious peculiarity within a specific chinese framework and set of values.

razib, it is interesting that you see Christianity as being less prone to attack and being mocked than other faiths. Ask any evangelical Christian and they would tell you that their faith is under constant attack.

it's perception. also, in any case, it isn't to the extent of 'piss christ,' it is usually attacking evangelical christians as primitive rubes, which mainline christians also engage in to triangulate. and christianity might be attacked more vociferously in the united states because it sends a message, 'piss christ' gets more of a rise than 'piss krishna' out of americans. but, i don't think you'd see pictures of jesus christ on toilets, which is what happened with some hindu god a few years ago according to manish. it wasn't an attack on hinduism, it was simply treating hinduism as an object rather than the faith of hundreds of millions. finally, you need to standardize for the fact that there are many more christians and christian thoughts and ideas floating around in the USA, so in raw numbers you'll see a lot more of that. i'm talking about insults or slights standardized for numbers, and i think hinduism is a good religion to commercialize and trivialize because there aren't many hindus in the USA and they won't pose any danger. christianity is not a good religion to trivialize, though it is a good religion to commercialize (though some christians would argue that the latter entails the former).

Maybe a few people here are taking offense at his comments about Hinduism, but as an atheist and somebody who enjoys a good joke, I am taking offense at his weak attempt at humor.

No argument from me on the lack of humor when it comes to Rail's attempt at satire. I found it quite "unfunny" if there is such a word - but then I don't find Chris Rock funny either and a lot of people do. I guess humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

16 · risible said

40-50% of Americans do not believe in evolution.

It's actually higher. See this ABC news poll, and put down that hot cup of tea before you do: http://tinyurl.com/2b8ov.

6 · razib said

i don't think someone who rejects evolution is a 'lunatic.'

Razib: I'm genuinely curious, would you say a presidential candidate who rejects gravity is a lunatic; if so how would you parse the difference? Etymology?

Razib and Louie Cypher --

Reactions to a related piece by Ayaan Hirasn Ali in the NYT?

24 notsoyoungdesi "I feel that to take offense at Rail's attempt at satire is being overly sensitive - which is something we, as South Asians, are prone to doing."

Certainly one should have a sense of humor about things, even one's own religion, but my problem with South Asians is that we are the LEAST prone to being overly sensitive. If we want to give our children a fair shake in this society, we need to be a little more vigilant, without becoming vigilantes, of course.

In this media-dominated, perceptions-formed-by-sound-bytes world, everything IS reduced to a brand, and perception IS reality. And brands need to be "managed," or you will get what you deserve.

There was a debate here a few months ago over the characterization of Apu in The Simpsons, and one of the founders of SM stated on national TV that the unflattering image of this Indian convenience store owner and, by extension, all South Asians, was probably racist and detrimental to all of us. As much as I personally enjoy The Simpsons, I agreed totally with our South Asian Brand Ambassador because there should be a separation between the personal and public when it comes to taking a stance for the greater good of the brand. We may personally enjoy the humor but we must publicly denounce it. The fact that Apu the store owner is not above cheating his customers and has been known literally to sell merchandise off the floor is not as innocuous as Jewish mom jokes, which we have heard enough on television. Cheating people is not funny, and Indians shown as cheating people shouldn't be funny.

In a similar vein, to accept all the references to Hindu mythology in this cartoon strip as just good, old-fashioned humor is not very prudent, in my humble opinion.

I guess I am a lunatic, not because I necessarily disbelieve that men descended from apes (though scipedant that I am, I'd point out that apes and men both descended from something else), but because I do think it's perfectly reasonable for another person to believe in creation. It's not an irrational belief. It's as rational as any other rational thought process, which is to say it's your typical black box with inputs and outputs, and garbage in, garbage out.

I am not sneering at creationism at garbage in, either. Just now I read a thread at Overcoming Bias blog where fresh off a tone-deaf and schoolyard-taunting post on Christmas day mocking the Immaculate Conception, the blogger states his belief in Transhumanism and the Singularity.

The ego of man knows no bounds, and neither does his faith. Reason is just a tool applied in service of both.

I tend towards increasing skepticism of "rational thinking" as any kind of intrinsically superior in terms of relative "Truth" (capital T). Overcoming bias? Such righteousness! Such hubris!

Now, however, what is superior is method, not process. This is why the true fruit of the Enlightenment was the scientific method, not secularism and the conceit that any human thought can ever be truly objective.

At any rate, sneering at Hinduism for being "strange" is not much different from sneering at Huckabee for being devout, and you can't take offense at one an dnot the other. Well, you can, but in doing so you are not exactly... reasonable.

#27 Rahul" Floridian, you and Kasper Gutman, both. Although there's many other reasons to distrust a man too."

Eliot, and now Bogart! Is there no end to your refined tastes, Rahul? If you ever deign to descend on a plebeian place such as South Florida, do drop in for an evening of Prufrock and The Maltese Falcon. They go marvelously with fine cognac and canapes.

Floridian, I have been reading your postings for a while - well before my first post on this forum. As always, your comments are insightful and well articulated.

With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had stated as part of the posting that you cited, the view that I indicated in a subsequent posting that Rail's attempt at satire is not funny. I do differ with you as to the sensitivity of South Asians when it comes to perceived insults. I think where we are in agreement is that we often do not take any type of follow-through action when it comes to offensive behavior that we should be rightly find offensive - and this has ramifications for our children and the community as a whole.

Before coming to the US, I went to school in England during the sixties and I know how perceptions and stereotypes have a profound impact on how a community is viewed. It is not something to be ignored but it is helpful to maintain perspective as we consider the images that are conveyed about our community. Historically other immigrant groups in years gone by have been subjected to the same sort of stereotypes that we occasionally face today. Some of the very same accusations we face today as "money-grubbing cheaters" was something that the Jews faced in years gone by. As these other groups have integrated into the mainstream, these stereotypes have gradually faded. I see the same thing happening with the South Asian community down the line.

I am presently in Kerala - spending the winter away from the cold of Northern Virginia - and what I find interesting is that these very same stereotypes are so very much in vogue when it comes to the perception of other communities within India - whether it be the unscrupulous business practices of certain communities, the lack of cleanliness of others or the marginal intelligence of certain segments of the Indian population!

I don't think the cartoon is offensive but I do believe it is dangerous. If there is any offensiveness it seems to be more a by-product than the intention. The point of the cartoon doesn't seem to be an attack on Hinduism but rather a reflection of just how ridiculous it is for people (especially the mainstream media) to tiptoe around his stances on the grounds of respect for his faith. I think he misses the mark and highlights his own ignorance and it's kind of clumsy, but I don't get the sense of intentional attack on Hinduism as opposed to other beliefs. So, while it may be misinformed for the various reasons people have pointed out, and dangerous because that misinformation can be swallowed by people who don't have much exposure to the religion, I'm not so sure I would say it is offensive.

How to counteract the danger? I guess to be ready, willing and able to explain the various ideas people have expressed here: there is nothing in the religion that demands that all adherents subscribe to a particular form of belief whether it is ceiling cat or a tortoise who is in charge of the world, sati was practiced in many areas but was by no means universal (and have a good set of other eye-brow raising practices from other religions--witch burnings being a good one), the analogy fails etc. It's important to be able to counteract the "chilled monkey brains" with correct information and also with information that suggests the other side may not have the best cuisine on the planet either either. I think we're fortunate that times HAVE changed significantly from the Indiana Jones days, in that there is now a sizeable group of people who are familiar with the mores and history of the U.S. to be able to make such points and also in that the "mainstream" seems to be more willing to listen.

On the other hand, sati was practiced for a long time, even if it was geographically limited and casteism was (and arguably remains) a huge part of the religion in most if not all areas. So, while I find "chilled monkey brains" offensive precisely because it is intended to denigrate and is patently false, I can't really take umbrage at picking on some of the more notable and discomforting aspects of Hinduism in order to make a point--if we wouldn't give Huckabee a pass for acting on these horrific principles, why do we let him get away with acting on equally horrific principles just because he couches them in the flak-jacket of evangelical Christian faith?

It's probably been agreed with and disagreed with, but I stopped reading the comments after the evolution flame war started.

I think the cartoon was fucking hilarious.

Makes sense to me, and people who don't get it might not find it funny anyway.

I'm not offended by this cartoon in the least. If one person, albeit a divine one, can die and erase all sins throughout time, then anything is possible! Even four elephants holding up the earth!

I think that reasonable people understand that when it comes to religion or culture, you can't believe everything you read. You also can't count on people to keep cultural practices and religious beliefs/mythology straight.

The last frame made me laugh, too. It's to be taken with a grain of salt.

I am willing to bet that 80% of Rall's non-Desi readers will not have the faintest clue what religion he is using for a foil. The other twenty percent will be split between those who get his point and those that will want to argue with you that it should be suttee because that is how Kipling spelled it...

CT

AFAIK, no real Hindu fundamentalist believes in the earth theory, sati or untouchability. The cartoon would've made more sense if it depicted the real perceptions of a Hindu fundamentalist to show how people would tiptoe around them.

Hindus don't have any book that tells them "this is how it is" but various texts that theorize and attempt to explain the world's reality. So although the problems in these cartoons may be problems in Hindu society at various points in time, Hinduism is a dynamic enough religion as to lose these ideas as new ones trump them. This is the root of the Western misunderstanding about this religion, coming as they do from a Divine Book perspective.

I guess I'm not offended. I'm disappointed that more misconceptions are being created about the religion and its fundamentalists.

Rall attempts to cover himself by claiming its a fundamentalist in 2008 BC, but that is likely to be lost on readers who will come away with the idea that this is what today's Hindu fundamentalists believe. Sigh. Oh well. No cure for ignorance or those who propagate it.

I was amused by thei ignorance and not offended a wee bit.

. If there is any offensiveness it seems to be more a by-product than the intention. The point of the cartoon doesn't seem to be an attack on Hinduism but rather a reflection of just how ridiculous it is for people (especially the mainstream media) to tiptoe around his stances on the grounds of respect for his faith. I think he misses the mark and highlights his own ignorance and it's kind of clumsy, but I don't get the sense of intentional attack on Hinduism as opposed to other beliefs.

I am willing to bet that 80% of Rall's non-Desi readers will not have the faintest clue what religion he is using for a foil.

am not sure how familiar the readers here are with ted rall's work. he's been provocateur-at-large for quite a while and i've seen him get really outrageous after 9-11-2001, given the sensitivties around the WTC bombing. he's gone on record to call rice a "house ni***". he's dissed veterans by calling them idiots and has mused that the guys who died in iraq are a matter of darwinian extermination. it's his biz to be a pissy sonuvabitch. but,... i wouldnt call him ill-informed.

he's one of the few journalists who's been on a field trip through pakistan+afghanistan since the war's onset and he has published a travelog on it. i havent seen any previous display of his knowledge on hinduism, but i know his research is pretty spot-on (though has strong biases). hence i wouldnt consider him ignorant. also, rall makes his living via left-wing forums and magazines. i am not well-aligned with the american demographic distribution, but the audience is urban, politically aware and is very likely to be aware of indian social issues.

i cant say i've enjoyed rall's cartoons. i dont even agree with a lot of his commentary. but i've seen a lot of it to realize that this is not anything he's singling hindus out for. yet, it's a fair question [Rahul] on why he chose hinduism, when he could have his pick from Christianity, Islam or Judaism. they were each fair game. I would tend to believe (via Razib) a. it's because hindus have the weakest lobby of all, or b. because the mythology offers the largest comic target for drawing parallels with huckabees creationist beliefs

also, rall makes his living via left-wing forums and magazines.

btw - i can understand if folks were offended by this. but i would like to flip it and say that rall is aware of how offensive he is, but believes that hindus in america are too well-balanced and too grounded to be disturbed or affected by this.

My question where I asked what constitutes a Hindu fundamentalist (as opposed to a Hindu fascist = Hindutvadi) was, what religious practices or beliefs does it entail? My understanding is that what makes Christian/Muslim/Jewish fundamentalists 'fundamentalists' is a more literal interpretation of their holy books, but what is analogous to that in Hinduism?

I think any one offended by this comic strip, is forgetting the fact, that the cartoonist is mocking fundamentalism and not Hinduism, per se.

P.S Anna, whatever happened to "Sepia Mutiny does not endorse or disapprove of any political candidates"?

No, not offended. But I'm only a practising Hindu with an atheist heart (long story).

I keep thinking the real problem with the cartoon is that it's a bit off the mark:
-- He should've picked a religion that people are wary of criticising either because of their political correctness or some guilt factor. Hinduism is simply too exotic for this.
-- Also, if it was to be Hinduism, there are much funnier (and more real) targets to use. Reincarnation and astrology, for example, and stuff like the "Ganesha drinking milk" episode.

SG, Very ture..Hindus themselves can do a better job of making fun of their religion and offending their religion loving brethren than what Rall tried (?) to do with his cartoon.

Absolutely not offended by it. Buddy, two comments above, said it best - Rall is mocking Huckabee's beliefs and fundamentalism. His portrayal of Hinduism is clearly his notion of what a fundamentalist Hindu must believe. I don't think his portrayal is very accurate, I haven't met a single person who believes all of those things. But the point gets across. Besides, who cares about the random "average american" who will form his opinion of Hinduism based on this cartoon??

-- Also, if it was to be Hinduism, there are much funnier (and more real) targets to use. Reincarnation and astrology, for example, and stuff like the "Ganesha drinking milk" episode.

How is reincarnation "funny" ? Most liberals in this country are not physical reductionists and I don't think Rall made this cartoon for the largely atheist/agnostic American Assoc for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) newsletter. This cartoon is supposed to be making some point about fundamentalists. Most liberal Dem Christians believe in a non-material soul that survives bodily death. Using this as a baseline for reasonable belief, how is reincarnation any kookier than that immaterial soul spending eternity in heaven ? I'll take symbolic marriage with dogs & trees and ignorance over capillary action over more corrosive forms of delusion anyday.

when i read this cartoon i thought; wow, rall is asking his peeps to accord huckabee the same cultural sensitivity they'd accord to a non-christian religionists. but appartently he's unaware such sensitivity exists. so easy to see double standards in others, so hard to see it in ourselves.

P.S Anna, whatever happened to "Sepia Mutiny does not endorse or disapprove of any political candidates"?

Don't be ridiculous. This has come up a few times recently and it's pure trolling. All we have ever said is that we do not endorse, because we are non-partisan and that was never part of our purpose.

Why challenge Anna when Abhi commented on this thread with just as much "disapproval" of Huckabee's views? What about Amardeep's Obama thread? No umbrage about our being hypocritical regarding "endorsements" there?

when i read this cartoon i thought; wow, rall is asking his peeps to accord huckabee the same cultural sensitivity they'd accord to a non-christian religionists. but appartently he's unaware such sensitivity exists. so easy to see double standards in others, so hard to see it in ourselves.

I want some of what you drank. I've NEVER heard anyone justify practices like casteism and sati. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of Americans give more credence to Christian 'theology' as opposed to Hindu 'mythology,' no?

when i read this cartoon i thought; wow, rall is asking his peeps to accord huckabee the same cultural sensitivity they'd accord to a non-christian religionists.

That's how it comes across to me, too, though perhaps with a more emotional slant: "You'd be more respectful to some crazy Hindu (jungle superstition) beliefs than you are to his (good old Amurrican) Christian beliefs." Sort of a self-pitying "We (majority "normal" religion) are so persecuted!"

Now, keep in mind I don´t know of Ted Rall's body of work...but then, should you need to know someone's whole body of work in order to correctly interpret one piece of it? (I think that´s a sign of a weak piece of work.)

46 · nala said

My question where I asked what constitutes a Hindu fundamentalist (as opposed to a Hindu fascist = Hindutvadi) was, what religious practices or beliefs does it entail? My understanding is that what makes Christian/Muslim/Jewish fundamentalists 'fundamentalists' is a more literal interpretation of their holy books, but what is analogous to that in Hinduism?

Hinduism doesn't have something analogous to the Bible or Koran (btw these texts aren't analogous to each other either). I guess Hindu fundamentalism can be defined as fanatically following traditional Hindu practices and forcing others to do the same. I don't think fundamentalism exists in Hinduism nearly as much as it exists in Christianity and Islam.

And "Hindutva = fascism" is simplistic. Hindutvadis see Hindus as an ethnic group that have been wronged and marginalized and seek to stand up for Hindu rights. Hindutvadis when in power have generally rolled back government control and when they lost elections Hindutvadis have ceded power. Fascists are by definition totalitarian, Hindutvadis are not.

Being a kind of lazy Hindu and also a scholar of Hinduism, I think this cartoon is pretty funny, actually. But that's largely because I'm pretty familiar with Hinduism, and also Christianity. I mean, how many Christians know about the story of the prophet Elisha sending bears to maul several small children who called him "baldy?" But it would make for a great obscure reference in a comic book.

I know a few fundamentalist Christians who are as rigid as this cartoon implies, and think that their view is normal and everyone else is crazy, and remain my friends because they are under the delusion that if they talk to me about Jesus enough, I'll convert. Like the ones who believe women should be subservient to their husbands and never be in a position of leadership over a man. Or the ones who believe that the earth was created in seven days by an invisible all-powerful god. As a Hindu, at least my religion allows room for philosophical difference and lots of use of metaphor rather than literalism. So I guess from that perspective, I think his use of very rigid and antiquated beliefs (still held by some extreme fundamentalist Hindus) is clever.

I don't think it's a good idea to elect a fundamentalist or a propagandist of any stripe to the White House - not when it's your job to govern a nation that is by definition full of many diverse beliefs and practices, and where those you govern have been guaranteed certain rights. We've got one crazy guy in the White House now who's doing his best to circumvent lots of civil liberties in the name of religion, fundamentalism, neo-conservatism and other fun stuff. It'll be tough to undo that damage. Oy vey.

"i cant say i've enjoyed rall's cartoons. i dont even agree with a lot of his commentary. but i've seen a lot of it to realize that this is not anything he's singling hindus out for. yet, it's a fair question [Rahul] on why he chose hinduism, when he could have his pick from Christianity, Islam or Judaism. they were each fair game. I would tend to believe (via Razib) a. it's because hindus have the weakest lobby of all, or b. because the mythology offers the largest comic target for drawing parallels with huckabees creationist beliefs"

I can't say for sure that Ted Rall knows dick-all about Hinduism but he probably does know that the unfamiliar makes for a good corollary example in the realm of political humor. He could have made the cartoon about something that is really foreign to the US, such as Zoroastrianism (of which I believe there are far fewer houses of worship in the US), and made essentially the same, "his nutty but familiar beliefs are just as nutty as these nutty beliefs with which you, dear reader, are not familiar. I'm pretty sure you won't do any research because you're just waitin' for a good guffaw. Gawd those fundies are dum-dums."

My question where I asked what constitutes a Hindu fundamentalist (as opposed to a Hindu fascist = Hindutvadi) was, what religious practices or beliefs does it entail? My understanding is that what makes Christian/Muslim/Jewish fundamentalists 'fundamentalists' is a more literal interpretation of their holy books, but what is analogous to that in Hinduism?

nala,

I think that the definition is made, especially in lefty blogs, in reference to beliefs that would reasonably have illiberal effects upon the society in which they were implemented. Rall is trying to say, indirectly, that as president, Huckaboom/bee/bust would have a negative effect on science education, public health and women's rights.

This analogy is quite wrong in 2 of the 4 cartoons. 'Sati' and 'Untouchability' are issues concerned with "human rights" and no "hindu fundamentalist politican" i know in India clamor for unbanning 'Sati' and 'Untouchability'. This is comparing apples and oranges.

The other two cartoons are funny, believing that earth is held up by four elephants is funny, equivalent to the belief that God impregnated some virgin to give birth to Jesus or Allah taking Muhammad on a winged horse to heaven. we can make fun of those and laugh.

Hindu fundamentalism is a fringe concept with few followers. There is however large numbers of Hindu fascists and they promote the Hindutva social order that threatens to destabilize India. The origin of their hate has more in common with the racialist pseudoscience of twentieth century European fascists than the literalism of Muslim and Christian fundamentalists. It's about blood and culture, not metaphysics/theology.

I agree. Good point.

I cynically wonder whether people will get mired in “Hinduism is strange” instead of questioning why we aren’t more worried about the rise of this candidate

To an average American, Hinduism is probably strange. If you are mostly exposed to the dominant religion in the US (Christianity) and you go to India and see gods who look like monkeys or gods with multiple hands, it will look strange.

I was talking to this Saudi dude, who was raised in Saudi Arabia and he left Saudi Arabia for the first time to come to the US for graduate school. He told me that seeing pictures of Jesus all around and statutes of Mary in Catholic churches was really strange.

Cobra Kai? As in, the baddies from Karate Kid?

How is reincarnation "funny" ? Most liberals in this country are not physical reductionists and I don't think

A 2005 Harris poll commissioned by Yoga Journal found that 16.5
million Americans practice yoga regularly. A 2004 Gallup
Poll found 72 million Americans -- 24% -- believe in
reincarnation, an astonishing number that has held steady
for decades and cuts across all religious affiliations,
including even 10% of evangelical Christians.

Khoofia, my point was not to make fun of people who reject evolution, but rather to point out that the claim that Huckabee's viewpoint on the matter represents the "lunatic fringe" of American Christianity is simply not correct. Perhaps American secularists are out of touch with the ground reality (to use a worn Indian phrase) in the country. Or perhaps they have nothing but disdain for the general population. I do think its problematic to elect a leader whose beliefs on these matters could affect policy - i.e., "faith based initiatives" to convert third-world heathen, the promotion of ID in schools, etc.

HarlemSun: Thanks, but I couldn't get your link to open.

yet, it's a fair question [Rahul] on why he chose hinduism

Because if he chose Judaism or Islam, it wouldn't be as offensive to fundamentalist Christians who were the target of his "joke". Instead he chose a non-Abrahamic religion that would be somewhat familiar to the general American public and one that the Christian fundamentalists would call "ungodly" because it is, they believe, "polytheistic".
The offense -is supposed to be- in showing some similarities between the two and about how ridiculous the fundies are for mistaking "truths" for fact.

Am I the only one here who actually likes Huckabee because of his sense of humor. As we all know even though he is not a foreign policy expert he did stay in an Holiday Inn express last night.

Am I the only one here who actually likes Huckabee because of his sense of humor. As we all know even though he is not a foreign policy expert he did stay in an Holiday Inn express last night.

I like Huckabee and would love to see a Huckabee - Obama contest. Both of them seem to talk from their heart and sound honest. In yesterday's debate, the best moment was when he cornered Romney with the question of "which position?". Romney was flabbergasted for a few moments. :-)

Khoofia, regarding your post 44, if Ted Rall isn't ill-informed, then are you saying that he has made a deliberate or reckless attack on Hinduism by using unfair comparisons (as people have pointed out)? I'm not arguing against you, I'm just trying to clarify. From what you've said, I get the sense that he has done the research in the sense that he knows about these beliefs, including the creation story (which is just one of many stories)--but not enough research to recognize that the analogies he is using are false (i.e. there is no overriding central text which prescribes a set of behaviour that must be followed, many of the beliefs are historical rather than accepted tenets etc.). However, you know more about this individual than I do, so perhaps he has acted deliberately or recklessly (i.e. he doesn't really care whether he is using the right analogy in order to further his shock value point) in using those particular examples.

I agree with you Bess--using Islam or Judaism isn't enough of a distinction to make the point effectively. The other Abrahamic religions get accorded a level of grudging respect that the non-Abrahamic religions don't. And given that the mainstream does see the religion as foreign and different, it does underscore the point. It's just that he's contorting the square peg shape of the religion to fit into his round hole analogy and for those who have some familiarity with the subject matter, it doesn't sit well. And I suppose he could have chosen scientology, but that gets into points made earlier about the reaction that would engender. On the other hand, how much clout do wiccans have?

As an aside, I'm not sure if the point was to offend certain denominations of Christians as much as it was to raise the issue with the broader group out there.

50 · SkepMod said

His portrayal of Hinduism is clearly his notion of what a fundamentalist Hindu must believe.

I think it is slightly more nuanced than that. There is a difference betweeen social evils/religious superstitions and fundamentalism ( though one may feed the other to an extent). All the four cartoons by Rall is an example of the former more than the latter. In fact at my place of work when we were dicussing about religion in India/of Hindus, my white male colleague passed a jocular remark about "porcelain gods"....I didn't get offended because I think Hinduism is too complicated and exotic for white people who believe in monotheistic religions to understand.

I cynically wonder whether people will get mired in “Hinduism is strange” instead of questioning why we aren’t more worried about the rise of this candidate.

And if you are Hindu (as I think a majority of our readers are), are you offended by this cartoon?

Anna, you are fears are coming tru on this thread and aren't your above sentences kind of slightly contradictory ?

Anna, you are fears are coming tru on this thread and aren't your above sentences kind of slightly contradictory ?

I am not sure that I understand your comment. Would you be kind enough to just state what you find contradictory so I know exactly what you mean, and then I can respond?

Bongsie at 62, yes, exactly. :)

It's just that he's contorting the square peg shape of the religion to fit into his round hole analogy and for those who have some familiarity with the subject matter, it doesn't sit well.

Ente, you're right he's contorting and, I bet, Rall doesn't care who else might be offended by his lampooning of Huckabee (and the Christian fundies).
I know Wiccanism is, for the most part, a nature religion, but most still think it's satanism, etc.
(I took a religious studies course on Witchcraft and Paganism. The textbook was written by NPR's Margot Adler. I was surprised by how many ex-Catholics were Wiccans.)

I think the implication is that Anna, you have levied an insult at Hinduism (Hinduism is strange), yet somewhat hypocritically ask if the cartoon does as well.

69 · A N N A said

Anna, your fears are coming tru on this thread and aren't your above sentences kind of slightly contradictory ?

I am not sure that I understand your comment. Would you be kind enough to just state what you find contradictory so I know exactly what you mean, and then I can respond?

I cynically wonder whether people will get mired in “Hinduism is strange” instead of questioning why we aren’t more worried about the rise of this candidate.

By the above sentence you mean (?) that you want the thread to discuss more on the rise of Huckabee instead of discussing Hindusim is strange issue

And if you are Hindu (as I think a majority of our readers are), are you offended by this cartoon?

But this sentence would probably lead the discussion to very area that your previous sentence didn't want to go into

risible said

HarlemSun: Thanks, but I couldn't get your link to open.

The poll results are strangely formatted, but it does work for me. Try this. No spitting on the keyboard when you see how many Americans believe Noah's ark trolled the oceans :)

You may laugh at the last frame since it has been setup in the first.
Otherwise if you have to explain & discuss this much, it doesn't even deserve to be called a joke !

I guess Hindu fundamentalism can be defined as fanatically following traditional Hindu practices and forcing others to do the same.

I don't think there's anything wrong with fanatically following traditional hindu practices as long as you don't force anyone else to do the same. There are people who do their rituals 3 times a day, others fast multiple times a month, some swear to wear only white forever, etc. etc. These are of course only the "normal fanatics". Then there are the fringe fanatics who do all kinds of punishing things to themselves. To each his own. Sometimes when I see extreme sports it reminds me of these guys. It may not seem like the road to happiness but perhaps some of us do have to go down some extreme roads to work out our kinks.

To me hindu fundamentalism is stuff like literally believing the epics, insisting that Rama existed (so what if he did or didn't), taking umbrage over the fact that hindu literature is called mythology and not religion, insisting that the hindu gods must also be spelt with a capital "G" (currently this honor is denied to the pagan gods). But the real scourge of hinduism imo is not fanaticism but supersitition.

>>I guess Hindu fundamentalism can be defined as fanatically following traditional Hindu practices and forcing others to do the same.

There's a contradiction right there: The most important traditional Hindu practice is to let others practise whatever they want (as long as the others don't want to stop you from practicing what you want). I call it the Zero'th Guideline of Hinduism.

Hindu fundamentalism, as others have pointed out, assumes that there are fundamentals that every Hindu must follow. Considering that it's not true, the term is meaningless. The only term that has some meaning is: A Hindu's Fundamentalism - thus guaranteeing individuality to every Hindu to practise what he/she considers fundamental to his/her interpretition of Hinduism.

For me, a Hindu fundamentalist is one who:

1. Believes in Karma and Re-birth
2. Wants minimal Government role (defence, police, courts)
3. stands for strong property rights

That's it. It's more or less American Libertarianism + Karma/Rebirth.

M. Nam

"I find it somewhat disturbing that the american people are electing a president based on their perception of whether he is someone they would sit down with for a drink....

After reading that I have to post this artice on The Onion called "Long-Awaited Beer With Bush Really Awkward, Voter Reports"

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42590

The picture that goes along with the artice is priceless.

To me hindu fundamentalism is stuff like literally believing the epics, insisting that Rama existed (so what if he did or didn't), taking umbrage over the fact that hindu literature is called mythology and not religion

I'm sorry, I don't understand what's so 'fundamentalist' about being annoyed that your literature isn't accorded the same level of implicit belief and respect as others? And it seems that real Hindu fundamentalists would be the least likely to care about this issue (and also the issue about Hindu deities being spelled with a capital 'G' when referred to as god/goddess).

For me, a Hindu fundamentalist is one who:

1. Believes in Karma and Re-birth
2. Wants minimal Government role (defence, police, courts)
3. stands for strong property rights

That's it. It's more or less American Libertarianism + Karma/Rebirth.

But #2 and #3 don't necessarily have anything to do with Brahman for many people.

>>But #2 and #3 don't necessarily have anything to do with Brahman for many people.

Those people are not Hindu fundamentalists according to me. I could give a detailed explanation, but it's off topic - so another time.

On topic - Huckabee's all right. In a democracy, one has to pick the person who's the least problematic and one who has the most chance of getting elected.

M. Nam

ente

then are you saying that he has made a deliberate or reckless attack on Hinduism by using unfair comparisons (as people have pointed out)? I'm not arguing against you, I'm just trying to clarify. From what you've said, I get the sense that he has done the research in the sense that he knows about these beliefs,

ente, I thought about the above debate. even if my reaction is different probably due to past exposure to rall's work - i do not disagree the point made by many (incl. anna, floridian, rahul, you) that this is cringeworthy/offensive. to encapsulate a complex culture into four panels is not doing justice to a civilization. there are factual errors to say the least. i also will not claim to speak for why rall singled out hinduism. I do not know what's in the guy's mind. all these are lines in the sand and i can see myself arguing for both sides as the mood strikes... so i will pull myself out of that debate.

however...! i find my stance hardening on one thing and it was rall's comment that irked me first.

Mike Huckabee, who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic.

>>Mike Huckabee, who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic.
>it is wrong to dismiss huckabee on the grounds of his creationist beliefs (alone) and to call him a lunatic

Correct. The country is becoming increasingly intolerant of alternate viewpoints. Both the left and right are equally guilty of this. Evolution is not proven and neither is Creationism.

If one started labelling others as lunatics for such things, every candidate could be termed a lunatic by 30% of the country (atheists) because they all have professed belief in an omnipotent God. Most of the candidates can be labelled lunatics by Libertarians because they promise bigger Government. And so on and so forth...

M. Nam

14 · louiecypher said

Hindu fundamentalism is a fringe concept with few followers. There is however large numbers of Hindu fascists and they promote the Hindutva social order that threatens to destabilize India. The origin of their hate has more in common with the racialist pseudoscience of twentieth century European fascists than the literalism of Muslim and Christian fundamentalists. It's about blood and culture, not metaphysics/theology. The Left likes to refer to it as Hindu fundamentalism to maintain some symmetry that does not exist and spare the feelings of people who practice other religions. This cartoon was stupid and way of mark. Saffron types don't have a conflict with scientific "Big Questions", their problem is a lack of humanity and belief in collective guilt. Fascism vs. Fundamentalism is a distinction with a difference, well meaning progressives will continue to be irrelevant in the fight for justice in India as long as they continue to push this bogus comparison.

Nicely done, louiecypher.

To me hindu fundamentalism is stuff like literally believing the epics, insisting that Rama existed (so what if he did or didn't), taking umbrage over the fact that hindu literature is called mythology and not religion

I'm sorry, I don't understand what's so 'fundamentalist' about being annoyed that your literature isn't accorded the same level of implicit belief and respect as others?

First of all, it *is* mythology. Why clamor for a false, phony and fake status? Second, and more importantly, the traditions of India were never conceived of as a religion. If you force fit them into the religious conceptual framework, you can only expect (well-deserved) ridicule in return. To demand that Indian literature be accorded the same level of implicit belief as the others is right up there with demanding that creationists be allowed the same level of respect as the scientists. From some of the comments here it seems that that’s quite alright. Fortunately, others are not so shy to take a firm stand one way or the other.

If instead hindus forgot about all the religious nonsense and simply stuck to tradition, these problems do not crop up. Nobody has to explain tradition. That’s just what people do because that’s what their parents and grand-parents did. Plus, you can have the magic of tradition without buying into any corny belief system.

83· MoorNam said

Evolution is not proven and neither is Creationism.

MoorNam, this isn't quite correct. Not sure if you are a scientist (I am not), but if 90% of the scientific community and 99% of the scientific teaching community agree that evolution is scientifically proven, and that without knowledge of evolution, literacy cannot be attained, then I would stop equating evolution with creationism. But then I don't question plumbers on the efficacy of water closets vs. holes in the ground, or mechanics on using gas vs. water in my bike either, so maybe I'm just lazy. ;) See this for the National Science Teachers' Association's position on evolution, and this for dialog on how teaching evolution has shaped up in the U.S. school teachers' community.

81· MoorNam said

On topic - Huckabee's all right. In a democracy, one has to pick the person who's the least problematic...

One concern I would have in adopting your relativist stance about Huckabee's belief that the world is 10,000 years old, in the face of a hundred years of scientific inquiry and empirical evidence, is the classic slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Are you ok with Huckabee asking wives to "submit graciously to the servant leadership of their husbands?" How about his view that "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk"? Would his position on choice, Guantanamo or divine intervention in politics still make Huckabee alright with you?

In this context I think his position on evolution is a sign of bigger things to come, in much the same way dubyah went from a semi-religious, good ol' Texan AA member, to full-on voices-from-heaven follower of the word of god. A rerun would, I think, be a true disservice to this country and its constitution, never mind the world.

That should have been -

See this for the National Science Teachers' Association's position on evolution, and this for dialog on how teaching evolution has shaped up in the U.S. school teachers' community.

First of all, it *is* mythology. Why clamor for a false, phony and fake status? Second, and more importantly, the traditions of India were never conceived of as a religion. If you force fit them into the religious conceptual framework, you can only expect (well-deserved) ridicule in return. To demand that Indian literature be accorded the same level of implicit belief as the others is right up there with demanding that creationists be allowed the same level of respect as the scientists. From some of the comments here it seems that that’s quite alright. Fortunately, others are not so shy to take a firm stand one way or the other.

I don't see how that's the same as demanding that creationism is accorded the same credibility as science?? I find the analogy ridiculous; what is necessarily more 'false, phony and fake' about the Mahabharata than about the story of Jonah and the whale? I'm very aware that Hinduism isn't a religion in the sense that Christianity and Islam are, but when you refer to one tradition as 'mythology' and the other as 'theology' there is a connotation that the latter is somehow intrinsically more believable. It's not about wanting Hinduism to be thought of as a religion along the lines of Christianity/Islam, but about having it not dismissed as 'mythology' in comparison to the superior Christian/Muslim 'theology.'

If instead hindus forgot about all the religious nonsense and simply stuck to tradition, these problems do not crop up. Nobody has to explain tradition. That’s just what people do because that’s what their parents and grand-parents did. Plus, you can have the magic of tradition without buying into any corny belief system.

?? Except religions/traditions change, and I don't see a need to keep them around if I don't see the meaning behind them. It's even sillier to partake blindly of tradition without understanding what the 'corny belief system' behind it is, IMO.

what is necessarily more 'false, phony and fake' about the Mahabharata than about the story of Jonah and the whale?

Nala, I’m sorry, like most Hindus you are so in the bubble that you just don’t get it. Perhaps this quote might help.

Quote:

This whole insistence on the Bible being literal reminds me of something a Buddhist friend told me, about an elderly Buddhist priest/scholar at the place she works (in Japan, one of the mainstream Buddhist sects) who was teaching some would-be Buddhist priests from various countries, here for training. There were a lot of Americans in the class, and one day as he was teaching some story about Buddha's life, one of the trainees raised his hand and wanted to know whether the story they were being taught was true.

The scholar hesitated, and asked, "What do you mean by 'true'? It teaches something valuable about compassion, and in that way it is true." The trainee said, "But it contradicts the story you taught us yesterday. They can't both be true. Do we have to believe both, to be good Buddhists?"

"Oh, you mean factual," said the scholar. "Of course it isn't factual. Why would you think that? It's a teaching story. It is not supposed to be fact. I am not teaching you history. It would be absurd to insist that you believe it as fact. It would be like... like... like saying that Christians have to believe that the Bible is factually true to be good Christians! Ha ha ha!" He laughed and laughed and laughed at the idea. Then he noticed that his audience was not laughing. His questioner said, "But many Christians say you DO have to believe that the Bible is factual."

After that the lecture turned into a question and answer session. The scholar simply wouldn't believe it at first. He thought his audience was making it up, or had misunderstood something. Living in his scholarly bubble he had managed to read the Bible and study something about Christianity but completely miss the whole Bible-as-literal-fact thing. When his audience had convinced him that it was true, he wanted to know how such an absurd situation had came about. He couldn't understand at all how people could make such a fundamental mistake as confusing historical fact with religious myth. To him it was a completely new and absurd idea.

End Quote

Aside from being totally clueless about the depth of this belief thing in Christianity, you are also insulting Christians by making their truth equivalent to your mythology. Just as I feel insulted when hindu mythology is represented as the truth by Christians in their attempt to be equally respectful.

Divya- I don't think Hindu 'myths' are equivalent to Christian 'parables,' because I don't interpret things literally nor do I care if they are factually true. I understand your point that Hindu myths were never intended to be taken literally, but that's a function of the lack of proselytizing spirit in Hinduism (as well as other factors, I'm sure). Also, I'm sure there are many Christians who don't believe in the Bible literally but who still hold the values they glean from it, unlike in your story. I would prefer that people recognize that all religions are false and socially constructed, but since schools try to provide a balanced viewpoint I just ask that they do the same for Hinduism. In the modern context, it matters to have a belief system and not just blindly follow traditions. I'm guessing we won't reach any agreement on this point though, so I'm stepping out now.

I would prefer that people recognize that all religions are false and socially constructed, but since schools try to provide a balanced viewpoint I just ask that they do the same for Hinduism. In the modern context, it matters to have a belief system and not just blindly follow traditions.

My whole point is that there cannot be a balanced viewpoint if you lump hinduism along with religion.

I'm not sure what you mean by a belief system. Geography, physics, astronomy? To be kind and courageous? What happens to us when we die? All of these answers can be sought and obtained without religion. And you can have tradition on top of that since it serves a completely different purpose.

91 · Divya said

And you can have tradition on top of that since it serves a completely different purpose.

Indeed, there are times when even "progressives" like me must lie prone in the face of tradition.

i'm dbd, grew up hindu, living in dc
i thought the cartoon was clever
made me laugh (esp. the second, 'sati' frame!)

i am definitely not offended
most hindus won't be. proof?
assuming we had a similar political system
any current day pres. candidate in india who believes in
sati, untouchability, sagar mathan and appeasing gods during a national crisis
could never win a single state primary, even in a 'bimaru' state
(if he could even come up that far any party's ranks, including the BJP!)

hick's rise seems that much more disturbing!!

I think this may be straying off topic, but I think the issue of whether or not Hinduism is a religion needs to be addressed. Here's how dictionary.com defines religion (let's see if this blockquote feature works on my browser):

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

I think Hinduism qualifies as a religion under most, if not all, of the aforementioned definitions. This also seems to be the view of most academics in the comparative religions class. The matrix in which Hinduism operates may be different from that of the Abrahamic religions but it is a religion. Whether or not adherents accept literally some or all of the stories doesn't seem to be relevant as to whether Hinduism is a religion (just as whether or not people believe that the world is 10,000 years old doesn't make them a Christian). Moreover there are a number of Hindus that do in fact believe in the existence of certain avatars and believe that they were divine. Wishing it away doesn't make it so.

The point is not whether Hindu stories are true or untrue, the point is that they are as valid as the Abrahamic stories. That is, if you are going to accord Abrahamic stories a certain status, the same status needs to be accorded to the Hindu stories. Both have about the same levels of evidence. So yes, for example, it is worth pointing out the hyprocrisy in calling Hindu stories "myths" and Christian stories "beliefs" (and there are many Christians who also see their stories as symbolic rather than literal). It is worth pointing out that rakshasas are no more or less strange an idea than angels.

Moreover many Hindus do not just blindly follow tradition as a "lifestyle" choice, but perform rites etc. on an understanding that there is some divine purpose or aspect to such rites or actions. To say that Hinduism was never conceived of as a religion, I'm not sure what authority supports that assertion. Sure, it was never conceived as a religion bound by a specific, unchanging, one size fits all written canon of obligations, rights and viewpoints, but otherwise, yeah it pretty much hits the religion nail squarely on the head.

By accepting a lesser status, there is an implicit argument that it's okay to pick on Hinduism, because it's of inferior quality to the "real" religions--you know the ones where there is "true" belief, as opposed to quaint "myths". It gives support to the Huckabees and their ilk to explain that they should be afforded respect for their beliefs, but people of the pagan, heathen, capital G-Godless should not. And I think that leads to a logical conclusion that Hindus should be afforded less respect in all aspects, because their views don't mean as much or aren't worth as much. If following that approach makes me a fundamentalist, then let me be the first to line up for my "Fundie '08" yoga pants.

The point is not whether Hindu stories are true or untrue, the point is that they are as valid as the Abrahamic stories. That is, if you are going to accord Abrahamic stories a certain status, the same status needs to be accorded to the Hindu stories. Both have about the same levels of evidence. So yes, for example, it is worth pointing out the hyprocrisy in calling Hindu stories "myths" and Christian stories "beliefs" (and there are many Christians who also see their stories as symbolic rather than literal). It is worth pointing out that rakshasas are no more or less strange an idea than angels.

Help. This could only have been written by a hindu. I’ve known hindus who've spent 40 years among Christians and are *still* clueless about the difference. Just because nobody spent any time drumming religion into the hindu brain, they think it’s some sort of casual, do what you will, affair. The point is that the Abrahamic traditions do not identify their stuff as stories. Who the hell is a hindu to go about calling them stories? On the other hand to call the hindu stories real is beyond absurd, in addition to not being what hindus themselves do. It is also irrelevant to state that many xtians see their stories symbolically. Christianity is an organized religion. This means that they have it together enough that there is an official way it is represented in schools, universities, the media, encyclopedias, the government, the military, etc. It makes no difference if some half-baked athiest of a nominal christian sits in his armchair and makes a few comments about how their belief is not literal. Show me one quote from the NYT, PBS or even NPR that refers to the jesus or mohammad story as a myth and I’ll take back my entire rant. The "truth" of Christianty is a given. That's how it has been presented for 2000 years and that's why you have people making fun of the virgin birth etc. Nobody in India makes fun of the hindu stories because nobody goes around believing them to be true. Only in the west are Indian stories ridiculed because the western world simply assumes that the hindus must be going about believing all that nonsense just because they're required to believe nonsense. Now with the rise of hindu fundamentalism the truth of hindu stories has become an issue. As I said, my idea of a hindu fundamentalist is one who insists on the truth of myths.

By accepting a lesser status, there is an implicit argument that it's okay to pick on Hinduism, because it's of inferior quality to the "real" religions--you know the ones where there is "true" belief, as opposed to quaint "myths". It gives support to the Huckabees and their ilk to explain that they should be afforded respect for their beliefs, but people of the pagan, heathen, capital G-Godless should not.

The Abrahamic religions are staunchly anti-pagan. If you are a Hindu, by default your religion is inferior since you are a worshipper of false gods. It most definitely is already the case that pagan religions do not have the same respect as the Abrahamic ones. You’re in that same old hindu bubble and cannot see it because hindus are pretty much indifferent to these things. To be fair, Christians are not very forgiving of their own schisms and the most prolific anti-christian literature is to be found within their own traditions. But this also indicates how important it is for them to have the right understanding of God. That right understanding does not indclude the half mad pagan gods.

90 · nala said

I would prefer that people recognize that all religions are false and socially constructed, but since schools try to provide a balanced viewpoint I just ask that they do the same for Hinduism. In the modern context, it matters to have a belief system and not just blindly follow traditions.

Curious how you're defining false here since the context of religions are that they are 'socially constructed'.

It's like two groups of people outdoors one day, one group says we feel cold in the sun today and the other says the sun is warm on our faces. Neither is false since it's just of people collectively deciding to be subjective.

It makes no difference if some half-baked athiest of a nominal christian sits in his armchair and makes a few comments about how their belief is not literal.

s I said, my idea of a hindu fundamentalist is one who insists on the truth of myths.

Define a Christian as one whose belief is literal, and a Hindu as one whose belief isn't, and you're exactly right. Humpty Dumpty was right after all.

89 · Divya said

Aside from being totally clueless about the depth of this belief thing in Christianity, you are also insulting Christians by making their truth equivalent to your mythology. Just as I feel insulted when hindu mythology is represented as the truth by Christians in their attempt to be equally respectful

Ramayana is "truth" to hindus. That's why there is a controversy about Adam's bridge or Rama's bridge.
Mahabharatha and hence, Bhagavad Gita is also "truth". Hindus do believe in Mathura and Kurukshetra. If Vishnu, Garuda and churning the milk ocean was only mythology and wasn't literally believed, why is such a rush to Kumbhamela? Hindus do literally believe their "mythologies" and then ACT on them too. There won't be visiting "holy" places (considering the amount of religious tourism present in India),if majority hindus didn't literally believed in physical presence of divine.

Others have pointed why Hinduism is a religion and isn't just a tradition. May be Hinduism if split into Vaishnivism, Shaivism, Skatism etc could become similar in construct to Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc (not necessarily in that order :)). But that doesn't mean it is just a collection of myths.

About the Cartoon: [cynical mode]
If hindu fundies actively support SATI, why is there any mistreatment of widows at any time ("Water" by D.Mehta)? Surely, they could have easily burned all the widows instead of leaving them destitute?
If Hinduism needs to be potrayed as nuts, I demand it must be done logically and consistently. Either Hinduism wants the widows to be burned or not. How can it be both ways? [end cynical mode]

95 · Divya

I think you're missing a big point in the differences between these religions. Hinduism is in sense a evolutionary spirituality style religion. You can evolve or become more than you are either thru actions or prayers, etc...it is up to you. Christianity isn't sold that way at all. In that religion you've got to follow the letter of the law to get into heaven.

The difference in religions is all in the marketing.

Hinduism is user friendly. If you don't attain perfection in this life, no problem, there's always a future one. Islam and Christianity give you one life, right? Though ancient Judaism had the concept of transmigration of the soul, I wonder how the two religions springing from it - Christianity and Islam missed that point???

I didn't get the 3rd box of the cartoon about weight loss skill, human waste and untouchable. Does it have something to do with cleaning out his intestines?

Define a Christian as one whose belief is literal, and a Hindu as one whose belief isn't, and you're exactly right.

Not fair because it was the isms I was talking about. You cannot simply disregard the entire bit about how xtianty is officially represented and only talk about how some xtians talk about it. And Hindus who are currently fighting about the truth of Adam's bridge would qualify as fundamentalists by my definition.

Ramayana is "truth" to hindus.

Why the quotes around truth then? And if you claim that the mahabharata is the truth that can only mean you haven't ever read it. Unless by truth you do not mean the factual truth in which case you are agreeing with me.

95 · Divya said

Christianity is an organized religion. This means that they have it together enough that there is an official way it is represented in schools, universities, the media, encyclopedias, the government, the military, etc. It makes no difference if some half-baked athiest of a nominal christian sits in his armchair and makes a few comments about how their belief is not literal.

Don't you mean Constantine was powerful enough to have a council and make Christianity official? If only Adi Shankara had such power, all hindus would have their Pope in Shankaracharya Matts. Or perhaps if most of the official versions weren't burnt, killed (yes, oral) or mocked for over a 1000 years, Hinduism might have had an official version instead of a scattered version.

Curious to know if a religion is a "true" religion only if it carries political power and an "official" version.

[Too much OT this one. I will bow out of this discussion now.]

Either Hinduism wants the widows to be burned or not. How can it be both ways? [end cynical mode]

That was a limited cultural (and most likely financial) practice, located in very few areas of India, two that I know of, Bengal and Rajasthan.

The numbers of satis were a small minority, though even one was one too many.

However, it was not widely practiced by the majority of people either in Bengal or Rajasthan, what to speak of all across India. Nowhere in Mahabharat, Ramayan, Gita, Bhagavat Purana, or any of the yoga shastras or tantras will you see an order for wives burn themselves in funeral pyres.

Sati means "chaste". A woman who is loyal and chaste to her husband is called "sati".

Hindus do literally believe their "mythologies" and then ACT on them too. There won't be visiting "holy" places (considering the amount of religious tourism present in India),if majority hindus didn't literally believed in physical presence of divine.

Too simplistic argument again... Doesn't mean that every Hindu who celebrates Diwali celebrates it because it of some mytholgical reasons. According to Hindusims there are different levels of spirtualism in a human being and depending on that one can choose to be religious/spiritual in whatever way ( something akin to different branches of Yoga ). As reg. Hindu mythologies/stories a better comparison would be Greek and Roman mythologies instead of beliefs of monotheistic religions.
Again it would be better categorize social evil, religious superstitions, rituals, culture, spritualism, philosphy etc. etc. Hinduism is too complicated.

Some things we take literally, some things as allegory, and somethings both. Even shastra distinguishes.

Don't you mean Constantine was powerful enough to have a council and make Christianity official? If only Adi Shankara had such power, all hindus would have their Pope in Shankaracharya Matts. Or perhaps if most of the official versions weren't burnt, killed (yes, oral) or mocked for over a 1000 years, Hinduism might have had an official version instead of a scattered version.

But the whole beauty of it is that there is no official version. If, as you hope, Shankara had gone around and established an official religion, then only those people who are interested in advaita vendanta would have a path to follow. In effect, your wish is that there be only one way to happiness. How about all of the others who never practice any form of yoga? The claim of the indian traditions is that everyone can find happiness by following a set of practices. These practices may be simple home rituals, devotion to some particular deity, just following one's duty, or work, going on pilgrimages, contemplating the epics, meditation, chanting, going to their local gurus, whatever. Only a miniscule percentage of people are drawn to heavy philosophy or experimental practices. I don't think it will do to equate hinduism with vedanta. This type of thinking is just another legacy of the indologists (and has been around just for a couple of hundred years).

Oh yeah, and different traditions or schools of thought (sampradayas) within the large umbrella of Hinduism, all have differing interpretations of the same myths. The myths mean different things to different sampradayas depending on their emphasis. Hinduism is not one big monolithic religion at all, but an umbrella term for many, many, MANY different belief systems.

Thank Goddess Shankar did NOT do that!

The dwaita-vadis, vaishistadwaita-vadis, dwait-adwaitavadis and achinya-bhed-abhedavadis would NOT want adwaitavada to be the "only path to God". In fact, adwaidavada does not even have as clear a definition of "god" as some of these other vadas. In fact, adwaitavada is the exact OPPOSITE of dwaitavada. It would never have worked.

I don't think it will do to equate hinduism with vedanta.

All the four major Vaishnava sampradayas have their official commentaries on the Brahma Sutra (Vedanta Sutra), but their conclusions are very different from Shankaracharyas.

99 · lion said

In that religion you've got to follow the letter of the law to get into heaven.

That is so not true - many Christian sects (paging the resident expert on Christian theology) employ the concept of grace with respect to salvation (especially Calvinists, Lutherans, and to some extent, Methodists, and of course, the original sin tainted Catholics). In fact, this is concept is explained very lucidly in Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (otherwise a delightfully kooky piece of analysis). Further explanation from the fount of all knowledge:

In Christianity, divine grace refers to the sovereign favour of God for humankind. especially in regard to salvation,irrespective of actions ("deeds"), earned worth, or proven goodness. Grace is enabling power sufficient for progression. Grace divine is an indispensable gift from God for development, improvement, and character expansion. Without God's grace, there are certain limitations, weaknesses, flaws, impurities, and faults (i.e. carnality) humankind cannot overcome. Therefore, it is necessary to increase in God's grace for added perfection, completeness, and flawlessness.
Put another way, humankind is unable to evolve or be saved without God's grace; it is a prerequisite to salvation. Additionally, humans cannot exchange good deeds for it. It is a free gift from God. Thus, humankind is saved all by grace and not by some combination, mixture, or blending of good works and divine grace. Were it achieved by works, humans could take pride in their efforts towards holiness.

In fact, humans err, when they assume out of their pride, that it is their good works or sincerity in belief that grants them a place in heaven:

For by grace ye are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Although some sects try to work around this and say that one should try and behave like God has bestowed his grace on you. How would such a person behave? Go to church, be charitable, and try to conform to Biblical injunctions.

Grace must be something that steers the Christian to avoid sin and practice charity. Without these signs, it seems likely that grace was never there. James speaks of works after salvation, as a result, and Paul speaks of the lack of works in gaining salvation.

Still, though, regardless of how sinful you might be, ask sincerely for forgiveness, and God will forgive you. Hell, (S)He might even make you President of the USA. And even tell you what to do next.

So Lion, no, sometimes all it takes to go heaven is swallow (your pride, that is), and say sorry :) Easy as pie, right? Even lil' Dubya can do it.

Meanwhile, some would have Hindus pay their dues. And those of their forefathers.

I wish Jyotsana was here to talk more about this.

the conservatism of hindu or muslim or christian fundamentalists is, i think, normalized to their societies, not derivable in essence from their religions. so if hindus fundamentalists have extreme attitudes toward female chastity in line with muslims as opposed to looser attitudes (that is, no honor killing) among christians, that isn't because hinduism and islam are fundamentally similar, rather, the societies where the religions are expressed are similar. this makes sense when you note that honor killings occur among jordanian christians.

YES!

And you see quite an openness mind and body amongst the western youth who were born and raised in Hindu yoga communities in the western world. Yogaville offspring, ISKCON offspring, Osholand offspring (well they were open to begin with), but there are a handful of quite conservative Hindu communes and communities dotted across the west wherein the western converts jumped on the fundamentalist bandwagon but their children who were born into it ended up being quite well balanced, with more western sensibilities than their parents (who are more often than not western themselves), but with a strong sense of connection with their religious heritage and community. Basically they let go of all the sexual taboos and emphasis on celibacy, which when you get down to it, is the main taboo of any major religion.

101 · Divya said

Ramayana is "truth" to hindus.
Why the quotes around truth then? And if you claim that the mahabharata is the truth that can only mean you haven't ever read it. Unless by truth you do not mean the factual truth in which case you are agreeing with me.

Just to clarify, I meant factual truth. I differentiate this from absolute truth (sorry,I can't easily define my personal absolute truth for others) by quotes.
I know my Ramayana and Mahabharatha. There is archeological evidence on existence of Mathura. Thanks.

To Bridget Jones:
I understand my argument is simplistic, but a personal belief is what it is. Not all people who celebrate Christmas believe in birth of Christ on that particular day either (some may not even be christians by their own definition). But by considering the number of people involved, it could still be inferred that enough people believe in it to make effort.
Hinduism is a living religion (though a complicated one),which implies there are living people who still believe that Rama and Krishna existed on this earth as factual truths.
Roman/Greek Paganism isn't being practised now. So, how can an existing belief system be compared to those mythologies?

[Sorry moderators; no more OT from me :)]

divine grace refers to the sovereign favour of God for humankind. especially in regard to salvation,irrespective of actions ("deeds"), earned worth, or proven goodness. Grace is enabling power sufficient for progression. Grace divine is an indispensable gift from God for development, improvement, and character expansion. Without God's grace, there are certain limitations, weaknesses, flaws, impurities, and faults (i.e. carnality) humankind cannot overcome. Therefore, it is necessary to increase in God's grace for added perfection, completeness, and flawlessness.

This is akin to the Pushti Marg, the path of nourishment (also loosely translated as grace).

Mercy, grace, blessings from on high are the emphasis in the Vaishnava Sampradayas.

Nobody pays for the sins of their forefathers once you start on the path of devotion (bhakti). Rather, even one's forefathers benefit from an offspring taking to the path of bhakti!!! -- with no separate endeavor, it just automatically happens. Such is the grace of the MOST HIGH.

There is archeological evidence on existence of Mathura.

Meera lives in Mathura district, Uttar Pradesh. I can vouch for the fact that the town exists. Need my zipcode>

I guess I am a lunatic, not because I necessarily disbelieve that men descended from apes (though scipedant that I am, I'd point out that apes and men both descended from something else), but because I do think it's perfectly reasonable for another person to believe in creation. It's not an irrational belief. It's as rational as any other rational thought process, which is to say it's your typical black box with inputs and outputs, and garbage in, garbage out.

I am not sneering at creationism at garbage in, either. Just now I read a thread at Overcoming Bias blog where fresh off a tone-deaf and schoolyard-taunting post on Christmas day mocking the Immaculate Conception, the blogger states his belief in Transhumanism and the Singularity.

The ego of man knows no bounds, and neither does his faith. Reason is just a tool applied in service of both.

I tend towards increasing skepticism of "rational thinking" as any kind of intrinsically superior in terms of relative "Truth" (capital T). Overcoming bias? Such righteousness! Such hubris!

Now, however, what is superior is method, not process. This is why the true fruit of the Enlightenment was the scientific method, not secularism and the conceit that any human thought can ever be truly objective.

At any rate, sneering at Hinduism for being "strange" is not much different from sneering at Huckabee for being devout, and you can't take offense at one an dnot the other. Well, you can, but in doing so you are not exactly... reasonable.

Excellent points!

Meera lives in Mathura district, Uttar Pradesh. I can vouch for the fact that the town exists.

I've been to Mathura myself, have driven past Kurukshetra, love going to pilgrimage spots and earnestly listen to all the lore that is dished out about them. In a 5,000 year history, there's bound to have been wars, maha-wars, heroes and super-heroes. In general, superheroes and wars inspire a lot of art and literature. So sure, there likely was a Krishna who grew up in Mathura. But it is not particularly important to the philosophy or practice. Just as it is not important that Newton ever existed as long as we have his laws and know how to apply them. Now there's this whole bhakti path where a particular god is important to some people, but even then I'd never ever heard anyone in India talk about the true existence of their god. This is a *very* recent phenomenon and is most definitely a result of the rise of hindu fundamentalism.

So sure, there likely was a Krishna who grew up in Mathura. But it is not particularly important to the philosophy or practice. Just as it is not important that Newton ever existed as long as we have his laws and know how to apply them. Now there's this whole bhakti path where a particular god is important to some people, but even then I'd never ever heard anyone in India talk about the true existence of their god. This is a *very* recent phenomenon and is most definitely a result of the rise of hindu fundamentalism.

Suggested reading;

The medieval Vaishnava commentaries on the Bhagavat Purana, as well as medieval literature and biographical work on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It is not a recent phenomenon nor is it the rise of Hindu fundamentalism. Heck, just take a trip back to Mathura/Vrindavan, get out of your taxi and talk to some of the devout there (or any random person). Many of them are not even literate nor do they keep up with the rises and falls in the Hindu fundamental world.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that you never heard anyone in India say that their god or path is superior to anyone else's???

Vaishnavas do assert that their Beloved Lord exists. The whole culture of Vrindavan/Mathura is built around that sambandha.

Now there's this whole bhakti path where a particular god is important to some people, but even then I'd never ever heard anyone in India talk about the true existence of their god. This is a *very* recent phenomenon and is most definitely a result of the rise of hindu fundamentalism.

If people didn't believe in the true existence of their god, why would they perform pujas and lavish fruits, sweets, etc. on statues/symbols of the deities? Why would anyone give milk to Ganesha on Vinayaka Chaturthi? Even if they can't prove its existence or if they don't even believe it's literally true, it's true for them and has meaning to them. If the definition of 'Hindu' is ever-changing, why can't it change in this way too (assuming that it was different before)? IMO it's not fundamentalist as long as they're not forcing it on anyone and they're not harming anyone.

For once I'm glad for Pardesi Gori's participation in a thread. Thank you, PG.

110 · portmanteau said

So Lion, no, sometimes all it takes to go heaven is swallow (your pride, that is), and say sorry :) Easy as pie, right? Even lil' Dubya can do it.

Actually you're proving my point Portmanteau if you think about it. :)

53 · SM Intern said

P.S Anna, whatever happened to "Sepia Mutiny does not endorse or disapprove of any political candidates"?

Why challenge Anna when Abhi commented on this thread with just as much "disapproval" of Huckabee's views? What about Amardeep's Obama thread? No umbrage about our being hypocritical regarding "endorsements" there?

Ok, Mr or Ms. SM Intern, Please spare me the crap. You are not fooling any one, by saying that you are a non partisan organization. I have not exactly seen endearing articles about republicans, lately. I do not mind people expressing their partisan views. But what I do despise is blatantly coming up with partisan articles and then claiming to be non partisan.

If people didn't believe in the true existence of their god, why would they perform pujas and lavish fruits, sweets, etc. on statues/symbols of the deities? Why would anyone give milk to Ganesha on Vinayaka Chaturthi? Even if they can't prove its existence or if they don't even believe it's literally true, it's true for them and has meaning to them. If the definition of 'Hindu' is ever-changing, why can't it change in this way too (assuming that it was different before)? IMO it's not fundamentalist as long as they're not forcing it on anyone and they're not harming anyone.

I didn't mean to make it sound as simplistic as it probably came across. It's complicated. I think belief in god is sort of hard-wired in humans. It probably has something to do with fear. So yes, people do believe in their gods. But in the entity called hinduism this belief is not *emphasized* by an ism, nor by parents, or gurus. It's just one among many things, such as keeping fasts or doing a ritual. One way to tell that belief is not so important is to notice that there are multiple beliefs about the same thing, often contradictory. This could be just to emphasize a point. Every stotra that you read claims that it is the most efficious of all, and that its deity is the best of all. Hindus will chant one stotra on a Monday and the next on a Tuesday and so on. The same hindu chants shiva is the best one day and saraswati is the greatest the next day. Now are they all complete idiots, or could it be that belief is less important to them than attitude, whether or not they pay lip service to belief?

In any case, when in doubt it's good to talk about yourself and not just random hindus. Do you really believe there's a shiva sitting up there in the sky? I'm asking because I never gave a thought to any of this until I came to the US. One day I was asked if I belived in Shiva and to me that was bizarre question. No hindu would ask me that. I didn't know whether to say yes or no. Both answers seemed wrong. So whatever it is that I hold about shiva, it is not a belief. At least not in the same sense of the word that the Abrahamic religions use. If most hindus want to settle for some cock-eyed translation scheme, I hope that wont stop others from continuing to try and figure out ways to come to a better understanding of their traditions.

Nobody in India makes fun of the hindu stories because nobody goes around believing them to be true. Only in the west are Indian stories ridiculed because the western world simply assumes that the hindus must be going about believing all that nonsense just because they're required to believe nonsense.

Divya:

I won't make statements that are not based on facts. Probably you are not aware of DK/DMK in Tamilnadu. Recently, the chief minister of Tamilnadu ridiculed Lord Rama on the Ramsetu controversy in a few public meetings. I grew up reading virulent attacks on Hindu gods/ goddesses / rituals, I guess even the most virulent attacks on Hinduism by Christians would pale in comparison. I have given this link before. Even now for fun, I read those. For people who know Tamil, goto this website, a daily newspaper of the DK,
www.viduthalai.com
link

Generally, I'm amused by the discussions on Hinduism. It reminds me of the story of a few blind men describing an elephant to one another.
I've come to the conclusion that no one knows what is Hinduism. :-).

123 · Ponniyin Selvan
Generally, I'm amused by the discussions on Hinduism. It reminds me of the story of a few blind men describing an elephant to one another.
I've come to the conclusion that no one knows what is Hinduism. :-).

It's about bringing your dog along for the walk in the woods.

Should I be offended by something as fleeting as Rall's cartoon? If so, then perhaps I won't vote for Hillary, since that would signal Kali Yuga...

;-)

I didn't mean to make it sound as simplistic as it probably came across. It's complicated. I think belief in god is sort of hard-wired in humans. It probably has something to do with fear. So yes, people do believe in their gods. But in the entity called hinduism this belief is not *emphasized* by an ism, nor by parents, or gurus. It's just one among many things, such as keeping fasts or doing a ritual. One way to tell that belief is not so important is to notice that there are multiple beliefs about the same thing, often contradictory. This could be just to emphasize a point. Every stotra that you read claims that it is the most efficious of all, and that its deity is the best of all. Hindus will chant one stotra on a Monday and the next on a Tuesday and so on. The same hindu chants shiva is the best one day and saraswati is the greatest the next day. Now are they all complete idiots, or could it be that belief is less important to them than attitude, whether or not they pay lip service to belief?

In any case, when in doubt it's good to talk about yourself and not just random hindus. Do you really believe there's a shiva sitting up there in the sky? I'm asking because I never gave a thought to any of this until I came to the US. One day I was asked if I belived in Shiva and to me that was bizarre question. No hindu would ask me that. I didn't know whether to say yes or no. Both answers seemed wrong. So whatever it is that I hold about shiva, it is not a belief. At least not in the same sense of the word that the Abrahamic religions use. If most hindus want to settle for some cock-eyed translation scheme, I hope that wont stop others from continuing to try and figure out ways to come to a better understanding of their traditions.

Divyaji, you are not giving a complete nor thoroughly educated (about the various sampradayas) analysis here.

People who fast and chant for Shiva one day and Saraswati (or whoever) the next, well, perhaps they are pancha-upasaks (worshippers of five major deities). Or they are bascially following something that their parents did, or neighbors or whatever, like a "folk religion" of sorts. But people who actually take diksha into a mantra in a certain line, well they will not mix up like that, it is not at all recommended, it is contrary. They are very fixed in one isht-deva only. These are "sampradayikas", members of a sampradaya, particular school of thought. All things (gods) are not all mix and match in India. This is a very wrong impression to give to people. Yes, many people in India DO mix and match, and there may be nothing wrong with that (I'm not giving a value judgement here), but it does not speak for the millions of people who follow particular lines of thought, particular shastras (scriptures) at the exclusion of all others, and particular sadhanas meant for the worship of one particular isht.

And they do these things because they "believe" in all of it.

Should I be offended by something as fleeting as Rall's cartoon? If so, then perhaps I won't vote for Hillary, since that would signal Kali Yuga...

What? A sign of Kali Yuga is that women will be given power???

Probably you are not aware of DK/DMK in Tamilnadu. Recently, the chief minister of Tamilnadu ridiculed Lord Rama on the Ramsetu controversy in a few public meetings. I grew up reading virulent attacks on Hindu gods/ goddesses / rituals, I guess even the most virulent attacks on Hinduism by Christians would pale in comparison.

I know next to nothing about DK/DMK but did hear about some insult to Rama by the CM of TN. You didn't specify the context of the rest of the insults. In any case all of this sounds like politics. Sticking to religion, you fnd atheist christians ridicule the virgin birth because they know it is held to be true. You do not hear atheist hindus making fun of Shiva's three eyes because even the believers don't take it literally. Unless they do now?

These are "sampradayikas", members of a sampradaya, particular school of thought. All things (gods) are not all mix and match in India. This is a very wrong impression to give to people. Yes, many people in India DO mix and match, and there may be nothing wrong with that (I'm not giving a value judgement here), but it does not speak for the millions of people who follow particular lines of thought, particular shastras (scriptures) at the exclusion of all others, and particular sadhanas meant for the worship of one particular isht.

Meera - I am acutely aware that there exist some rigid sampradyas (schools of thought/tradition). There also exist some not so rigid ones. And many in between. So you would also set a wrong impression if you claim that mixing and matching is not allowed.

121 · Buddy said

Please spare me the crap. You are not fooling any one, by saying that you are a non partisan organization. I have not exactly seen endearing articles about republicans, lately. I do not mind people expressing their partisan views. But what I do despise is blatantly coming up with partisan articles and then claiming to be non partisan.

What is relevant is whether an issue or story is compelling, not whether it fills some bullshit quota for parity. When a GOP candidate does something positive which is relevant to this site, I'm sure there will be a post up. SM has had negative posts about Obama and Clinton, yet in those threads, you don't see Democrats whining about how this blog is so partisan. Spare you? Spare all of us.

Pondatti for President!!!! In 2008, he?(she) will deliver us from the tyranny of the troll!

For me, a Hindu fundamentalist is one who:

1. Believes in Karma and Re-birth
2. Wants minimal Government role (defence, police, courts)
3. stands for strong property rights

Which of us doesn't fondly remember the Bala Vihar classes where we all chanted the scriptures about the tricameral forms of government and the immorality of squatting?

Meera - I am acutely aware that there exist some rigid sampradyas (schools of thought/tradition). There also exist some not so rigid ones. And many in between. So you would also set a wrong impression if you claim that mixing and matching is not allowed.

But schools of thought in Christianity are not allowed similar leeway, and are considered authentic only if they believe in literalism?

Which of us doesn't fondly remember the Bala Vihar classes where we all chanted the scriptures about the tricameral forms of government and the immorality of squatting?

Heh.

Don't you see, Brahma = courts, Shiva = police, Vishnu = the defence?

property rights = artha.

If you ever deign to descend on a plebeian place such as South Florida, do drop in for an evening of Prufrock and The Maltese Falcon. They go marvelously with fine cognac and canapes.

Flordian, did you go to South Florida for the culture? You were misinformed. But, of all the plebeian places in all the towns in all the world, I'd walk into yours. Y'know, so that we'd always have South Florida.

Because if he chose Judaism or Islam, it wouldn't be as offensive to fundamentalist Christians who were the target of his "joke". Instead he chose a non-Abrahamic religion that would be somewhat familiar to the general American public and one that the Christian fundamentalists would call "ungodly" because it is, they believe, "polytheistic". The offense -is supposed to be- in showing some similarities between the two and about how ridiculous the fundies are for mistaking "truths" for fact.

Interesting explanation, and far more charitable than mine. I'd chalked it up mainly to a combination of safe choices and ignorance, but given what khoofia also says about his 9/11 ouevre, maybe you're right.

Pondatti for President!!!! In 2008, he?(she) will deliver us from the tyranny of the troll!

Given that the word means "wife" in Tamil, unless Pondatti is from Massachusetts, I am assuming it's a "she". Of course, if I am wrong, that will make for quite the election in 2008 - choosing between a woman, a black man, and a Desi gay man. “You know, they said this day would never come."

106 · Divya said

But the whole beauty of it is that there is no official version. If, as you hope, Shankara had gone around and established an official religion, then only those people who are interested in advaita vendanta would have a path to follow. In effect, your wish is that there be only one way to happiness. How about all of the others who never practice any form of yoga? The claim of the indian traditions is that everyone can find happiness by following a set of practices. These practices may be simple home rituals, devotion to some particular deity, just following one's duty, or work, going on pilgrimages, contemplating the epics, meditation, chanting, going to their local gurus, whatever. Only a miniscule percentage of people are drawn to heavy philosophy or experimental practices. I don't think it will do to equate hinduism with vedanta. This type of thinking is just another legacy of the indologists (and has been around just for a couple of hundred years).

I am sorry my comments weren't clear. I was proposing exactly opposite to vedanta thought.

Catholicism is not Christianity. But Constantine and Council of Nicaea are responsible for having an official version of Christianity, final version of Bible, the Holy Trinity and regulation of religion after that. There are several denominations of Christianity but Catholicism took up the task of keeping it official (or powerful?).

Similarly, Aadi Shankara reformed Hinduism and established Panchayatana puja, ie, praying to Ganesha-Shiva-Vishnu-Sakthi-Surya, established the peetas etc. So, he established the major acceptable forms to pray. Today 95% of hindus worship one or other forms of these Gods (apart from Muruga/Karthikeya I don't see who else falls outside these categories - I am willing to be educated if there is still major worship of Indra,Varuna etc). So, irrespective of high-brow Vedanta, Advaitha philosophy,(primarily to counteract Buddhism, Jainism) common folk would still pray to one or all of these Gods with the usual ritual, puranas, pilgrimage surrounding these Gods. There could still be several schools of thoughts/sampradaya (denominations if I may say), but we would have an official version with five Gods. The peetas would be authoritative enough to promote or denounce literal God.

Alas, if only Aadi Shankara lived long enough to be exposed to Islam and Christianity, we would have a well articulated official position centuries ago instead of all hindu fundies, indologists and ignorant people like me trying to explain Hinduism.

About Cartoon:
I am wondering why four elephants,turtle and cobra? Give me the good old cosmic egg.
Is cartoonist lazy to confuse between catfish-earthquakes (I mean the Japanese myth that the gaint catfish supporting the earth and causing earthquakes*) with cobra-earthquakes?

*As far as I know, there is no Japanese religion considering catfish as primary deity.So, I called it a myth :).

I know next to nothing about DK/DMK but did hear about some insult to Rama by the CM of TN. You didn't specify the context of the rest of the insults. In any case all of this sounds like politics. Sticking to religion, you fnd atheist christians ridicule the virgin birth because they know it is held to be true. You do not hear atheist hindus making fun of Shiva's three eyes because even the believers don't take it literally. Unless they do now?

Well, the context is from your statement that I quoted.

Nobody in India makes fun of the hindu stories because nobody goes around believing them to be true. Only in the west are Indian stories ridiculed because the western world simply assumes that the hindus must be going about believing all that nonsense just because they're required to believe nonsense.

And this is not just politics. DMK is a political party (an offshoot of the DK) while DK is a non-political party calls itself a movement of social reform and has been in existence for more than 50-60 years. They make fun of Hindu stories exactly because they think that many Hindus believe those stories to be true. And many Hindus do think the stories as true. Otherwise we won't see people waiting in line for hourse to have their heads tonsured in Tirupati.

Rall, of whom I am a big fan, has used this method before to make a point using Zoroastrianism:

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/43175
http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/2005/03/26/

I don't find them offensive, even though none of the Zoroastrians I have ever known look or dress like the people in his cartoons, nor am I aware that there even are "fundamentalist Zoroastrians" but I think the cartoons are effective at pointing out the extremism of some positions.

137 · Golfastrian said

Rall, of whom I am a big fan, has used this method before to make a point using Zoroastrianism:

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/43175
http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/2005/03/26/

I don't find them offensive, even though none of the Zoroastrians I have ever known look or dress like the people in his cartoons, nor am I aware that there even are "fundamentalist Zoroastrians" but I think the cartoons are effective at pointing out the extremism of some positions.

My relatives in India live in what traditionally has been a Parsi neighborhood. I've seen Parsi men wearing those white topis. The women in the cartoon seems to be wearing a Parsi-sari draped in the Guju style. And the guy in the 2nd cartoon looks like a typical Parsi priest with the white beard and white outfit.

I think Rall did a pretty good job capturing the idiosyncrasies of that community's way of dressing (though he is presenting caricatures).

Most Americans are used to Christian fundamentalists trying to inject religion into politics and they've become inured to it. Rall uses religions that most Americans find exotic to demonstrate how absurd non-believers find religion-based politics. IE there really is no difference between Jesus-based politics and Zarathustra-based politics.

He could have made the cartoon about something that is really foreign to the US, such as Zoroastrianism (of which I believe there are far fewer houses of worship in the US), and made essentially the same, "his nutty but familiar beliefs are just as nutty as these nutty beliefs with which you, dear reader, are not familiar. I'm pretty sure you won't do any research because you're just waitin' for a good guffaw. Gawd those fundies are dum-dums."

Psst. Murali. Look one post above mine. He did just that.

My thoughts on this:

-Huckabee cartoon not particularly informed, offensive or funny

-"A Guide to Zoroastrian America" = pretty funny

-Rall recycles himself

-Recycled Rall will always be funnier than Mallard Fillmore

-Mallard Fillmore sucks

Whoops. Two posts above mine.

Dictionary.com defines myth as:

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Divya, I trust you'll accept that lexicographers try to ascribe generally accepted definitions rather than impose their own "if wishes were kings" desires to a word (Samuel Johnson excepted). Clearly Hindu stories qualify under 1,2,4 and 5 and possibly 3. The point is, so do the stories of Abrahamic religions. Your reasoning that because the media here does not expressly treat the stories as myth they must not be is tautological. Both meet the definitions above, just as both Hinduism and Abrahamic traditions meet the definitions of religion. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt as there is in how Ganesha got his head (oooohh, drrrty ;)).

Neither the Bible, nor the Ramayana state that their contents are merely stories--both take a reportage approach. And in both religious traditions there are people who view the stories as symbolic (seriously, ask 20 Episcopalians if they believe that the earth was literally created in 7 24 hour days--I have, and got a nice explanation from the parish priest of how the story was intended to be symbolic, with much nodding by the members of the congregation who were present) and those who believe them to be true. And as Hinduism has gained a foothold and as these matters are pointed out, the secular mainstream media in North America that discusses the birth of Christ at Christmas is making more of an effort to remove the "mythical" from Rama when discussing Diwali (it's not perfect and there will always be holdouts but there has been a marked change).

I agree that Hinduism has a greater scope of stories and beliefs and a greater tolerance for allowing people to choose from amongst those beliefs (and I like the analogy of the blind men and the elephant). I also agree that certain beliefs that were widely held by early adherents (e.g. Indra and Agni as the primary deities) are no longer believed by the majority of adherents today. That in no way lessens its qualifications as a religion based on the definitions above, nor does it lend greater validity to the stories of the those religious traditions with less of a margin of tolerance. And thus, in an ostensibly secular society, Hinduism is worthy of equal respect in the public sphere (which would likely be zero respect to an atheist) as the Abrhamic religions, regardless of what the adherents of those religions believe. Which is why (wrenching the steering wheel to bring matters back on topic) I do not find the cartoon offensive, but I still believe it is ill-informed.

If wishes were kings beggars would ride, and I think you're straying into mendicant territory by rejecting other people's evidence and anecdotes in favour of your own general sweeping statements ('nobody", "everybody") without evidence (speaking of myths) and with abundant condescension about how anyone who disagrees with you lives in a bubble and how you are the only one who truly "gets" how Christians and Christianity work (really, even more so than the other folks who grew up here?). Regardless, by your definition, I'm apparently a Hindu fundamentalist, and, considering the source, I'm comfortable with that. Ram Ji ki Jai ;)

I know next to nothing about DK/DMK but did hear about some insult to Rama by the CM of TN. You didn't specify the context of the rest of the insults. In any case all of this sounds like politics. Sticking to religion, you fnd atheist christians ridicule the virgin birth because they know it is held to be true. You do not hear atheist hindus making fun of Shiva's three eyes because even the believers don't take it literally. Unless they do now?

To explain further, The issue is both political and religious. "Rama Sethu" is a bridge thought of by Hindus to have been constructed by Lord Rama when he crossed from the southern end of India (i.e Tamilnadu) to Sri lanka to get his 'abducted wife' back. This is from the "story of Ramayana". When the government decided to demolish the bridge, many Hindus were offended and recently there was a meeting in Delhi where close to a million people (I guess Hindus) denounced the scheme. Offended by the opposition, the "atheist" CM of Karunanidhi ridiculed the beliefs of the Hindus and said to Hindus "Ramayana is a myth, don't believe it to be true".

Your claim is that Hindus do not believe their stories to be true and "Hindu atheists" don't attack the Hindus on such premise. But the ground facts (as I mentioned above) speak otherwise and contradicts both your positions. I don't deny that there will be seven other people who share your beliefs about Hinduism. Again this reminds me of the story of blind men and the elephant. :-)

Also, I've done the Abrahamic religions a disservice. Of course Episcopalians couldn't believe the earth was created in 7 24 hour days. Genesis says the universe and everything in it, other than God of course, was created in six consecutive days (the earth was created in one and subsequently populated). Mea culpa :)

Evolution is not proven and neither is Creationism.

I think it does everyone a disservice to pretend they're the same, and I also think arguing that "only Creationism" exists promotes a pro-ignorance agenda in the U.S. Mike Huckabee is entitled to his opinion, but I think it is foreboding and problematic for the president of the U.S. to be so anti-learning that s/he would dismiss evolution entirely. Further, I know plenty of very religious people who believe in an idea of Creationism (God created the world) and evolution -- the two beliefs are not incompatible. [e.g., who says that evolution is not a process promoted by God? Maybe He did create the world in 6 days, but who knows what a day is to God? 10000 years? 2 million?]. razib, I am perfectly content with saying that half the country is composed of a lunatic fringe, which is fueled in no small part by the rabid anti-learning and anti-science lobbies that exist across the public, private, and home-schooled education systems in many parts of this country.

I do think the man is funny, though. I like him, even if I wouldn't want him as my president. I like feeling that way about presidential candidates as opposed to being irked by someone.

Divya, I think your arguments re: Abrahamanic vs. Hindu traditions/interpretations don't make sense, in large part because you keep evaluating Hinduism from the position of the Abrahamanic religions (couldn't it be argued that you are making your claims from within the confines of a "Abrahamanic bubble"?). I don't think the objections to your analysis are evidence of a "Hindu bubble," but rather, are evidence of a thoughtful attempt to discern difference and meaning/context if you use the same criteria to judge all faiths instead of trying to create a ladder-ranking system of religions (in that term I include Hinduism).

I don't think the cartoon is funny, but mostly because it fails its punchlines by being inaccurate. I think the choice of Hinduism may have been to get people to think "outside of the box" by using something "exotic" or "unknown" to mainstream Americans to get them to see how wacky the same positions would sound if a person were Christian. The problem is that Rall didn't pick sufficiently accurate or wacky arguments made by fundamentalist Hindus (what does that even mean?). Also, I seriously wonder about the definitions/conflations between "fundamentalism" and the use of extreme literal interpretations to create a state and system that promotes those ideas (the latter being the "trigger" behind a lot of fundamentalist religious political action/movements). Was he aiming for the latter? I get the sense that he wasn't, but I think the two have become so intertwined in today's mainstream consciousness that it won't make as much sense to others.

I think the choice of Hinduism may have been to get people to think "outside of the box" by using something "exotic" or "unknown" to mainstream Americans to get them to see how wacky the same positions would sound if a person were Christian.

Exactly. This is akin to the "black bush" skit on the chappelle show. Get white people to see how silly and idiotic Bush is by reframing him in an exaggerated interpretation of black culture. Only difference is, the caricature is made by someone within that ethnic group.. not so here.

And in both religious traditions there are people who view the stories as symbolic (seriously, ask 20 Episcopalians if they believe that the earth was literally created in 7 24 hour days--I have, and got a nice explanation from the parish priest of how the story was intended to be symbolic, with much nodding by the members of the congregation who were present) and those who believe them to be true.

eloquent, ente.

Divya, many Christians do mistake truths for fact, but not all as ente has pointed out. Have you ever heard of Christian Mysticism?
quote: In Christian mysticism biblical texts are typically interpreted metaphorically.

HarlemSun #74 - thanks and yowza. A newly-minted Harris poll revealed more on the rejection of evolution among American Christians, and you were right, my 40-50% figure was vastly understated:

Yet Christians are far from a homogenous group and a break-up of respondents based on Christian traditions shows discrepancies in their level of belief.

Born-again Christians, for example, are more likely to believe in miracles (95 percent) as compared to Catholics (87 percent) and Protestants (89 percent), according to the poll.

On the other hand, only 16 percent of born-again Christians believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants.

Interestingly, more born-again Christians – a term usually referring to evangelical Protestants – believe in witches (37 percent) than mainline Protestants or Catholics, both at 32 percent, according to Reuters.

Clearly, Huckabee's views are "normalized" for the society in which he lives.

But schools of thought in Christianity are not allowed similar leeway, and are considered authentic only if they believe in literalism?

Everything does not have to be the same in the same way (if that makes sense). For example, I had a similar problem on the Urdu thread where the idea essentially seemed to be that all languages are the same. For a believing Christian there is not much leeway or there would not be any point being a Christian. You cannot say you are a xtian but that you don't believe in Jesus or the Bible. *Every* school of thought in Christianity believes in Jesus. So different things come into play when you compare hinduism and xtianty and the various schools of xtianty between themselves.

many Christians do mistake truths for fact, but not all as ente has pointed out. Have you ever heard of Christian Mysticism?

Yes. It's like if we're having a conversation about tigers you produce a baby kitten as evidence just because it belongs to the same species.

Similarly, Aadi Shankara reformed Hinduism and established Panchayatana puja, ie, praying to Ganesha-Shiva-Vishnu-Sakthi-Surya, established the peetas etc. So, he established the major acceptable forms to pray. Today 95% of hindus worship one or other forms of these Gods (apart from Muruga/Karthikeya I don't see who else falls outside these categories - I am willing to be educated if there is still major worship of Indra,Varuna etc).

Actually, the vedic rituals centre around Indra, Varuna, Agni etc. so yes, a majority of Hindus end up invoking them when dealing with deaths, marriages, and other life-cycle type things. Even here, tribals and some other groups have their own life cycle rituals which I doubt are vedic - but if not vedic they most definitely are also not anything Shankara prescribed. I also do not agree that 95% of hindus do any particular thing. I never heard of the Panchayatana puja until yesterday (although I read/listen to the saundarya lahiri)

So, irrespective of high-brow Vedanta, Advaitha philosophy,(primarily to counteract Buddhism, Jainism) common folk would still pray to one or all of these Gods with the usual ritual, puranas, pilgrimage surrounding these Gods. There could still be several schools of thoughts/sampradaya (denominations if I may say), but we would have an official version with five Gods. The peetas would be authoritative enough to promote or denounce literal God.

This, I suppose is the basic predicament. Hindus want so desperately to fit into the Abrahamic model. Sad.

You cannot say you are a xtian but that you don't believe in Jesus or the Bible. *Every* school of thought in Christianity believes in Jesus.

So whats your point? the term "hindu" is somewhat of a colonial one anyway, for example, you cannot say you are a srivaishnava but disbelieve in Ramanuja sampradaya. You cannot say you are a Shaiva but don't believe in Shiva as the supreme. You cannot believe yourself to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava and say you don't believe in Krishna. So I don't see your point.

Yes. It's like if we're having a conversation about tigers you produce a baby kitten as evidence just because it belongs to the same species.

In fact, the early Christians were all about symbolic ritual. So it's like we're talking about tigers, and someone produces a Trinil Tiger as evidence.

Yes. It's like if we're having a conversation about tigers you produce a baby kitten as evidence just because it belongs to the same species.

Damn! you got me there.
I was attempting to point out that Christianity isn't only defined by those xtians who take the book literally. There are other schools of thought within the religion/myth.

You cannot say you are a xtian but that you don't believe in Jesus or the Bible..

Kittens anyone?

I don't think the objections to your analysis are evidence of a "Hindu bubble," but rather, are evidence of a thoughtful attempt to discern difference and meaning/context if you use the same criteria to judge all faiths instead of trying to create a ladder-ranking system of religions (in that term I include Hinduism).

The bubble I'm talking about is the tendency of hindus to be blind to the *desired* feeling of separation that exists between the Abrahamic religions and paganism. If a certain religion teaches that idol-worship is wrong, it is awfully deluded of hindus to imagine that idol-worship is considered respect worthy (or should be).

All of these things sound good in theory, but pray tell me what same criteria do you have in mind?

If a certain religion teaches that idol-worship is wrong, it is awfully deluded of hindus to imagine that idol-worship is considered respect worthy (or should be).

You mean within that religion? or in general?

what hindus think that christians find idol worship respect-worthy (at least now, not earlier)?

what hindus think that christians find idol worship respect-worthy (at least now, not earlier)?

The general tone of my opponents is that all religions are respect worthy. This is logically and emotionally not possible from within religions.

from within religions

Abrahamic religions. One can reconcile belief in one's own religion and still respect the beliefs of others even if it stands in contravention of one's own belief, Xtians, et al, in general just don't do that.

Shiva, Shakti (Devi, Kali Ma) and Krishna (or any other avatar of Vishnu) are the three most popular worshippable deities in India.

Never said mixing and matching is not allowed. There's alot of it. But there is also alot of Hindus that do not mix and match. For instance, in Vaishnava tradition some other gods are worshipped on occasion, but as angels, or demigods, servants of Krishna or Narayan. Food will first be offered to the deity of Krishna in the temple, then that prasad will be offered to the demigod. It is forbidden in Vaishnava sampradayas to worship demigods as equal or superior to Krishna or Vishnu.

If Ganesh is worshipped he is worshipped to remove obstacles on the path of Vishnu bhakti. Like petitioning a saint.

Clearly Hindu stories qualify under 1,2,4 and 5 and possibly 3. The point is, so do the stories of Abrahamic religions. Your reasoning that because the media here does not expressly treat the stories as myth they must not be is tautological.

Ente – As I mentioned earlier, it is insulting to Christianty to call their creation or other stories myths. I use stronger words myself, but then I do not also go about saying in the same breath that religions need to be respected.

And as Hinduism has gained a foothold and as these matters are pointed out, the secular mainstream media in North America that discusses the birth of Christ at Christmas is making more of an effort to remove the "mythical" from Rama when discussing Diwali (it's not perfect and there will always be holdouts but there has been a marked change).

This, I believe, was how this whole exchange started. This is a symptom of hindu fundamentalism. Give it another decade and we can all chant in unison that Rama is truer than Christ. Gotta keep evolving after all.

And thus, in an ostensibly secular society, Hinduism is worthy of equal respect in the public sphere (which would likely be zero respect to an atheist) as the Abrhamic religions, regardless of what the adherents of those religions believe.

I did not say hinduism is not worthy of respect. I'm saying that hinduism, if viewed from the Abrahamic framework (emphasis on truth and historicity) can never, never, never, ever have this respect.

This, I suppose is the basic predicament. Hindus want so desperately to fit into the Abrahamic model. Sad.

Which Hindus want to fit into that model?

I can understand if one is living in a predominantly Abrahamic culture, to make things easier, you will try to find the similarities between your's and the majority religion, but in India I have never ever heard this sentiment to fit into an Abrahamic model. There's no need for it.

Anyway, all religions have some similarities and some differences. It's time to unite under the similarites, and celebrate the differences, for world peace and harmony.

If you put 100 organized religious members into a room, they will all find something to quarrell about.
If you put 100 mystics from the same religions into a room, they will all find something to agree on.

Let's become mystics!

This caravan of love accepts all!
Come out of the desert and drink of it's clear, clean waters!

When your heart is mad for the Beloved.
Only then can you be considered sane in our company!

Let's become mystics!

Tell that to the Pope. Let us know how it goes. Another example of the bubble for those who think I'm being high and mighty about it. Hindus cannot go about showing the path or interpreting the path for non-pagans from their own pagan perspective.

"Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home, the average I.Q. soared."

"The word 'hero' has been bandied about a lot to refer to anyone killed in Afghanistan or Iraq. But anyone who voluntarily goes to Afghanistan or Iraq [as a soldier] is fighting for an evil cause under an evil commander in chief."

"On July 5 a bomb killed seven recruits for a U.S.-trained Iraqi police force in Ramadi. U.S. occupation administrator Paul Bremer deplored the murder of "innocent Iraqis." Cops who work for a foreign army of occupation are not innocent. They are collaborators. Traitors. They had it coming."

"American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS."

In a 1999 article entitled "School's out Forever" Rall criticized the manner in which the school was reopened following the Columbine High School massacre, while showing understanding for the murderers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, claiming "the killers saved their bullets for bullies while telling other kids to leave before they got hurt". He also denounced the re-opening ceremony for the school as a "Nuremberg-style rally" and stated "leaving a few bullet holes or bloodstains behind (perhaps with an explanatory plaque) might have served as a cautionary tale for future bullies and their victims"

if viewed from the Abrahamic framework (emphasis on truth and historicity) can never, never, never, ever have this respect

It's true to an extent. however, they can have a certain degree of respect towards the people, and their right to practice those said religions. It's not simply "Abrahamic frameworks" that dictate whether respect can be given, but I'll agree it does make it harder for them.

Bah! Posting error... but those are quotes from Ted Rall, professional assh*t.

I was attempting to point out that Christianity isn't only defined by those xtians who take the book literally. There are other schools of thought within the religion/myth.

This begs the question as to how much one can depart from the norms of Christian doctrine and still be considered a Christian. It is the essence of why evangelicals believe that non-evangelical Christians are not true believers.

Frankly, it is a conflict that I am confronted with because I am a Christian by birth and consider myself a Christian but don't subscribe to some of the tenets of conventional Christianity. For example, I do believe that there is more than one path to God - something that conventional Christianity would deem heretical.

You cannot say you are a xtian but that you don't believe in Jesus or the Bible. *Every* school of thought in Christianity believes in Jesus.

So whats your point? the term "hindu" is somewhat of a colonial one anyway, for example, you cannot say you are a srivaishnava but disbelieve in Ramanuja sampradaya. You cannot say you are a Shaiva but don't believe in Shiva as the supreme. You cannot believe yourself to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava and say you don't believe in Krishna. So I don't see your point.

Point was that there are different levels of rigid constraints operating on the 2 religions. you just listed a bunch of traditions that believe in different things. in xtianty, even the differnt traditions cannot deviate from believing in Christ. don't ask me what the point of this is now because i've forgotten the context. Gotta go now.

in xtianty, even the differnt traditions cannot deviate from believing in Christ.

I'm saying you're holding Hinduism and Christianity in the same classification, where Hinduism is a colonial label that corresponds to a group of faiths, that share similarity but have more variation than the specific sects of Christianity.

Frankly, it is a conflict that I am confronted with because I am a Christian by birth and consider myself a Christian but don't subscribe to some of the tenets of conventional Christianity.

not so young but you do sound precociously skeptical ; )
who is to decide the norms of doctrine?

The bubble I'm talking about is the tendency of hindus to be blind to the *desired* feeling of separation that exists between the Abrahamic religions and paganism. If a certain religion teaches that idol-worship is wrong, it is awfully deluded of hindus to imagine that idol-worship is considered respect worthy (or should be).

The general tone of my opponents is that all religions are respect worthy. This is logically and emotionally not possible from within religions.

Hindus cannot go about showing the path or interpreting the path for non-pagans from their own pagan perspective.

I don't think it's awfully deluded to imagine that your religion merits respect. If you live in the United States, a country that despite its flawed history at least preserves a master narrative of plurality and diversity and equality under one civic identity, then I think it is entirely fair to expect equal treatment, accommodation, and respect. One's belief in the possibility of many gods, or of a multifaceted manifestation of one god through several entities, or worship of an image as proxy for other devotion, does not somehow make you inferior. This characterization of Hinduism is also not entirely accurate. There are plenty of Hindus who do not worship idols in the way you describe, and there are various interpretations of the nature of God/Gods. [To clarify for consistency, I also don't agree with your rationale behind "high" and "low" languages on the Urdu thread. ] Even if we used your logic and said Hinduism is not equally merit-worthy (which I do not agree with), how does that make it appropriate to lampoon, mock, or degrade it? I could be misinterpreting, but it sounds like you're arguing that Hinduism is 1) low, 2) an open target (because it is "low"), and 3) that no Hindu should be surprised, offended, or upset that their religion is degraded by others because it is inherently inferior.

There are plenty of religions that preserve the idea that other religions merit respect (i.e. the "many paths to one destination" concept). Your statement presupposes that identification with a religion or religious identity precludes you from respecting anyone from outside your faith tradition. That is inconsistent with reality and with many religions, both in their present interpretation and their historic development.

Razib - "i don't think someone who rejects evolution is a 'lunatic'."

Razib - "i'm an atheist who has little sympathy for "offense" taken when people mock the non-existent"

So Razib, you don' think that people who swear that the "non-existent" created the earth, the sun, the ten thousand billion light year sized universe and everything on it, in it and in between are a little loony?

hope god forgives me for believing that educated people who deny evolution should be socially ostracized, their blogging skills notwithstanding. unless of course, they are mentally deficient.

that no Hindu should be surprised, offended, or upset that their religion is degraded by others because it is inherently inferior.

I agree with the last two, but not the first. It doesn't strike me as a surprise, also, it's not because Hinduism is actually inferior, rather that many practicers of the Abrahamic faiths believe it's inferior.

Even if we used your logic and said Hinduism is not equally merit-worthy (which I do not agree with), how does that make it appropriate to lampoon, mock, or degrade it? I could be misinterpreting, but it sounds like you're arguing that Hinduism is 1) low, 2) an open target (because it is "low"), and 3) that no Hindu should be surprised, offended, or upset that their religion is degraded by others because it is inherently inferior.

for heaven's sake Camille. Please tell me where I say hinduism does not merit respect and is okay to lampoon? If anything I am saying *it does not get respect* and *does get lampooned* and trying to offer reasons for why that is so. Even though you do acknowledge that you could be misinterpreting, this is a total mockery. It's ridiculous how you're all about playing nicey-nice and now you come around and essentially say I'm an idiot not aware of your lofty US standards. And how very kind of you assure me that worshiping idols does not make one inferior.

149 · Divya said

This, I suppose is the basic predicament. Hindus want so desperately to fit into the Abrahamic model. Sad.

Dear Divya,
Let the Hindu speak.
Love,
Gayatri Spivak

[disclosure: this is portmanteau being a boore, which is a portmanteau of boor and bore. how delightfully meta.]

There are plenty of religions that preserve the idea that other religions merit respect

I guess it depends on what you mean by "merit respect". If the fundamental tenet of a religion is that salvation is only possible if one is an adherent of that particular religion, can it then be argued that those who follow other religions "merit respect"?

If the fundamental tenet of a religion is that salvation is only possible if one is an adherent of that particular religion

it just means that particular tenet must be rejected, or at the very least, "smoothed out" in the practicers mind. Like I said, it's not impossible, just a bit more difficult.

HMF, but if one rejects a fundamental tenet of a religion, can it then be argued that one is an adherent of the particular religion? I recall reading sometime back that one of the reasons why Islam is appealing to those who convert to the faith is its very rigidity which allows for little in the way of accommodation to fit into the changing times.

Divya, I am by no means saying you are an idiot, and I'm very sorry if my post read that way. I didn't understand that you were arguing a position for why some Christians might argue that Hinduism does not merit equal standing to other religions; your posts read as though YOU are arguing for that position. I asked for clarification because I was trying to understand where you were coming from, not to denigrate you as an individual. Also, my qualification re: the U.S. was to provide a sense of regional context because I understand that sometimes our (meaning the general SM commenting community) views, interpretations, and arguments differ extensively based on how we imagine the society/community in which our arguments apply. Clearly I misunderstood what you were saying; thank you for clarifying for me.

If the fundamental tenet of a religion is that salvation is only possible if one is an adherent of that particular religion, can it then be argued that those who follow other religions "merit respect"?

but if one rejects a fundamental tenet of a religion, can it then be argued that one is an adherent of the particular religion?

I see what you're saying. But fact of the matter is, people disagree about what is considered "a fundamental tenet" Even, in strict one's like islam, et al. I've met muslim women that don't drink, don't eat pork, but bear their mid-driff. They don't believe they're violating fundamental tenets, but other muslims think they are.

Hindus cannot go about showing the path or interpreting the path for non-pagans from their own pagan perspective.

In what context is the word pagan being used here?

Anyway, there are several religious Indians in India who do not like being clumped under the label Hindu along with others who believe and practice in things that they are diametrically opposed to.

A vaishnava will never accept being lumped into the same religious group as a shankarite.

The various religions in India that are lumped in under the "Hindu" umbrella are really quite different from one another.

I've met muslim women that don't drink, don't eat pork, but bear their mid-driff.

HMF, but if one rejects a fundamental tenet of a religion, can it then be argued that one is an adherent of the particular religion?

really quite different from one another

well, I dont know about "quite" different. I'd say they bear more in similarity than they do say islam or christianity. Anyway, I think, especially in the US, it's really dumb for people to bicker over these small things, when there are people who want to wipe all of us out (from a religious standpoint) anyway.

well, I dont know about "quite" different. I'd say they bear more in similarity than they do say islam or christianity. Anyway, I think, especially in the US, it's really dumb for people to bicker over these small things, when there are people who want to wipe all of us out (from a religious standpoint) anyway.

As a vaishnava i have some more in common with muslims and christians than with hindus who worship several different deities or with adwaitavadis who believe the most high is nirupa (without form) or nirguna (without qualities.

On other points however (such as transmigration of the soul) i may have more in common with a mix and match hindu and adwaitavadi. It would have to be broken down point by point.

When it comes to gender and feminist issues, I don't have anything in common with any of them.

But fact of the matter is, people disagree about what is considered "a fundamental tenet"

But I will add, there is a type of "majority definition" that takes place. At this point I'd say, there aren't exactly large swaths of xtians (in the US particularly) that are insisting for equal "respect" for other religions, despite individuals who say they do. In a sense, they can define what tenets are going to be followed strictly, and which aren't.

For example, if you look to ISCKON, you'll see lots of institutionalized intolerance on that front.

169 · HMF said

I agree with the last two, but not the first. It doesn't strike me as a surprise, also, it's not because Hinduism is actually inferior, rather that many practicers of the Abrahamic faiths believe it's inferior.

Both Islam and Christianity believe that their respective religions is the only way towards God. The central tenet of Christianity is the Jesus is the *only* path towards salvation. Under this belief all other religions have to be heresy or superstition.

Similarly Islam believes that the path laid out by Mohammad is also the only way to God. Islam does give some legitimacy to the Jewish and Christian religions but Hinduism is considered to be flat out idolatry and also heretical.

Can traditionally observant Christians and Muslims respect Hinduism? Frankly I don't think so. And I don't care. As long as I am respected and more importantly, left alone, they could think whatever they want of Hinduism.

Its not fair to lump in Judaism w/ Christianity and Islam under "Abrahamic religions". Jews believe they have a particular covenant with God and that its possible for other peoples to have their own covenants with God. In fact the doctrine of the "Righteous Gentile" is a basic Jewish belief.

As a vaishnava i have some more in common with muslims and christians

First of all, it depends on which subdivision of vaishnavism. If you said Gaudiya Vaishnavism, there's a case. but basic things like reincarnation (like you said) and existence of maya (which is still held by dvaitins to a certain degree), but more specifically, it's the registering of the vedas as apaurashaya, which no christian or muslim would ever dream of doing.

In fact the doctrine of the "Righteous Gentile" is a basic Jewish belief.

but isn't there a subset of Jews who believe they are the 'chosen' ones? This is exactly my point, there is going to be internal debate about what constitutes a "fundamental tenet"

But I will add, there is a type of "majority definition" that takes place. At this point I'd say, there aren't exactly large swaths of xtians (in the US particularly) that are insisting for equal "respect" for other religions, despite individuals who say they do. In a sense, they can define what tenets are going to be followed strictly, and which aren't.

For example, if you look to ISCKON, you'll see lots of institutionalized intolerance on that front.

This is why I said if you get 100 neophyte religious followers in a room, they will all find something to quarrell about while 100 mystics will all find something to agree on.

Institutionalized religion kills spirit.

I'll take a sufi muslim or a gnostic christian as a companion any day over a typical institutionalized vaishnava (iskcon or whatever) even though im a vaishnava as well.

184 · HMF said

but isn't there a subset of Jews who believe they are the 'chosen' ones? This is exactly my point, there is going to be internal debate about what constitutes a "fundamental tenet"

Yes - but the belief of being Chosen does not preclude gentiles from reaching God. Even the most chauvinist strains of Judaism (those that believe Jews are superior) also believe that gentiles can also reach God.

I'm saying that hinduism, if viewed from the Abrahamic framework (emphasis on truth and historicity) can never, never, never, ever have this respect.

And what I am saying in in response is that the American public sphere framework of today is not necessarily the Abrahamic framework (which by the way relies on itself as the source of its self proclaimed "truth" and "historicity"--the very definition of tautological reasoning--and for that reason I'm putting those words in quotes). Yes there is definitely overlap, but a distinction has been made, through constitutional and other means. And people who clamor for equal respect for the religions in the American public sphere (by, for example, asking that the stories of both traditions be qualified as myths in comparative religion textbooks, because logically they are the same, regardless of how fervently one individual or a group of individuals might believe in the story) are seeking to uphold that distinction. The Huckabees of the world are seeking to erode that distinction and insist that their Christian (not Abrahamic, Christian, and only of the “approved” denominations--the Catholic vs. "true" Christian debate is a doozy) framework should be synonymous with the American framework and thus, for example if they believe in the Genesis story because that is what the Bible says happened, it is a) an insult to question their belief in the public sphere and b) this belief must afforded more respect in the public sphere than the belief that Atlas holds the earth on his shoulders, because the Huckabees of the world fervently believe it and c) they should be able to act on this belief in the public sphere (for example by banning the teaching of evolution in public schools and insisting that only the Genesis creation story be taught in science classes)despite any or all objective evidence to the contrary. Some may choose to capitulate. I personally support those who choose to fight the erosion of the distinction.

Wow. So I guess I should relegate myself to being an inferior citizen in the U.S., what with my religion being 'pagan' and all. I don't care if some Christians think that Hindus are going to hell, what I care about is at least an ATTEMPT at objectivity when it comes to studying religions, and comparing them, in the public sphere (especially in schools).

Divya, with what you said here, it's just so hard to take you seriously:

This, I believe, was how this whole exchange started. This is a symptom of hindu fundamentalism. Give it another decade and we can all chant in unison that Rama is truer than Christ. Gotta keep evolving after all.

No one is asking for that. All I'm asking for is an attempt to consider that the beliefs of 'pagan' Hindus like myself aren't just 'mythology' in comparison to those of Christians, which are assumed to be truer and more rational.

And then you go all 'How dare you!' on Camille for calling you on your ridiculous argument? Pray tell, what would you have American Hindus do? Just sit back and let their children learn that Hinduism is inferior?

And then you go all 'How dare you!' on Camille for calling you on your ridiculous argument? Pray tell, what would you have American Hindus do? Just sit back and let their children learn that Hinduism is inferior?

Wait, I know what you're going to say to this. 'Hinduism IS inferior, because it's pagan. It's fundamentalist to insist otherwise.'

I didn't understand that you were arguing a position for why some Christians might argue that Hinduism does not merit equal standing to other religions; your posts read as though YOU are arguing for that position.

Sorry for my outburst too, Camille. My posts sound confusing because I'm trying to say that from within the position of particular religions, Hinduism will always come across as a pale and errant variant *at best*. At the same time, I'm also expressing some exasperation with Hindus who go about blithely believing that their religion is now well-respected.

And people who clamor for equal respect for the religions in the American public sphere (by, for example, asking that the stories of both traditions be qualified as myths in comparative religion textbooks, because logically they are the same, regardless of how fervently one individual or a group of individuals might believe in the story) are seeking to uphold that distinction.

Ente - This sounds like myth and fantasy in itself, but would love to know what happens. In any case, this is a million times better than Hindus clamoring for their stories to be considered true.

Its not fair to lump in Judaism w/ Christianity and Islam under "Abrahamic religions

Sorry about that. In any case I don't like to bash Judaism.

As for the Hinduism label in general, I'm aware that it is not apt but for the sake of conversation we just have to make do with it.

Pray tell, what would you have American Hindus do? Just sit back and let their children learn that Hinduism is inferior?

There is not much point berating Divya, her attitude is a fairly accurate representation of a majority of non-hindus of non-Indian origin, and ironically, of most scholars of hinduism in the west as well. I couldn't care less when it comes to religion, but the fact is, something along this lines is true, though not to the same extent, of India studies (both in India and west) as well---and no matter how progressive you are, the two are correlated.

Since much of humanities is subjective, these attitudes show in most "scholarly" work as well, to the extent that social sciences in India is in many cases too far removed from reality to be of much interest. It is in many cases, a weird generalization of something minor that someone sees---and voila, you have ppl believing hindu fundamentalism is about return to sati. Problem? If you say that is the flaw in hindu fundamentalism, you are playing into their hands that they are just being misrepresented---it is after all true in this case.

There is not much point berating Divya, her attitude is a fairly accurate representation of a majority of non-hindus of non-Indian origin, and ironically, of most scholars of hinduism in the west as well

I'm under the impression that Divya is an Indian Hindu. I'm surprised to read people here think she is putting Hinduism down, while it appears to me that she is glorifying one aspect of it - the mix and match, anything goes, liberal and accepting form which you do see amongst quite a many Hindus in India. It's an all-encompassing spirit which she seems to be saying Abrahamic religions lack.

the most chauvinist strains of Judaism (those that believe Jews are superior) also believe that gentiles can also reach God.

Jews are more territorial on a cultural front rather than a religious front, this is true. Ortho jews in fact don't even believe in converting to Judiasm. Although, I still think many Jews while they are open to Christianity and Islam, still have a degree of superiority felt towards religions like Hinduisim/Buddhism, etc..

Many times, "Gentile" is just a euphamism for "Christian"

I'm under the impression that Divya is an Indian Hindu. I'm surprised to read people here think she is putting Hinduism down, while it appears to me that she is glorifying one aspect of it - the mix and match, anything goes, liberal and accepting form which you do see amongst quite a many Hindus in India. It's an all-encompassing spirit which she seems to be saying Abrahamic religions lack.

That's a very generous reading of her comments. I understand what she's getting at, that from a more conservative Christian view, Hinduism IS inferior. But what people like myself are arguing for is at least an attempt at objectivity, not an attempt to glorify Hinduism.

There is not much point berating Divya, her attitude is a fairly accurate representation of a majority of non-hindus of non-Indian origin, and ironically, of most scholars of hinduism in the west as well. I couldn't care less when it comes to religion, but the fact is, something along this lines is true, though not to the same extent, of India studies (both in India and west) as well---and no matter how progressive you are, the two are correlated.

Are you saying that one of the axioms of 'India/Hinduism Studies' is that India/Hinduism is inferior? I'm not really surprised, unfortunately.

Jews are more territorial on a cultural front rather than a religious front, this is true. Ortho jews in fact don't even believe in converting to Judiasm. Although, I still think many Jews while they are open to Christianity and Islam, still have a degree of superiority felt towards religions like Hinduisim/Buddhism, etc..

Then how would you explain the large numbers of jews who join international Hindu/yoga organizations. I've been around quite a few of those for more than a decade and the number of members from a Jewish background are astounding. Plus, so many Israelis hang out in India and get into the whole yogic/meditationa/cool aspects of Hinduism vibe, and some of them quite deeply.

join international Hindu/yoga organizations

I dont even know what an international hindu/yoga organization is?

Plus, so many Israelis hang out in India and get into the whole yogic/meditationa/cool aspects of Hinduism vibe,

I dont live there so I don't know, but in the times I've visited, I haven't seen any Israelis. My experience is limited to white American Jews, none of which have taken a disproportionate interest in Hinduism.

But what people like myself are arguing for is at least an attempt at objectivity, not an attempt to glorify Hinduism.

And your idea of objectivity is that hindu mythology be given truth status just because Chritian doctrine has it? As my mom used to say: If such-and-such goes and jumps in the well, will you do that also? This is truly pathetic. It took the poor continent of europe more than a thousand years to shake off the dark ages. And look at what we have to deal with in the US! And on top of that you still don't get how this is fundamentalism.

And your idea of objectivity is that hindu mythology be given truth status just because Chritian doctrine has it? As my mom used to say: If such-and-such goes and jumps in the well, will you do that also? This is truly pathetic. It took the poor continent of europe more than a thousand years to shake off the dark ages. And look at what we have to deal with in the US! And on top of that you still don't get how this is fundamentalism.

And you still don't get what objectivity in the public sphere is.

New Delhi, Manali, Goa, are full of Israelis - after serving their manadatory time in their country's military, they come to India in droves and some stay for years. Pahar ganj has signs up and down the streets in hebrew and hindi both, same with Goa. Never been to Manali, can't say.

Finally falefals made their way to Bharat so I'm not complaining!

International hindu/yoga orgs are ISKCON, Gaudiya Math, Osho's org, Shivananda's org, Integral Yoga, Yoga Amrit Desai's org, Yogi Bhajan's org, and the hundreds of others..... lots of peeps from Jewish background.

That's a silly analogy. The jump in the well clearly discusses risky/physically harmful but "cool" behavior. not attitudes towards religion & religious history.

Hindu mythology should be given 'sacred' status. A great article on this topic is, by Dr. Frank Morales.

And you still don't get what objectivity in the public sphere is.

Well, what is it (if not a figment of your imagination)? An example of such objectivity if it exists would help.

New Delhi, Manali, Goa, are full of Israelis

Those are three cities, in the entire country, Id like to know what percentage constitutes "full of israelis"

lots of peeps from Jewish background.

but once they assert themselves in these organisations, they are no longer Jewish, culturally or religiously.

In any event, white American Jews on the whole really don't "respect" non-Abrahamic faiths any more than Xtians and Muslims, rather they just don't make a point to remind you you're final destination of being eternally barbecued.

Well, what is it (if not a figment of your imagination)? An example of such objectivity if it exists would help.

I'm talking about textbooks used in schools referring to things like the Mahabharata and Ramayana as 'myths'; instead of that, referring to them as 'epics' would be much better. That's one example. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you anymore, you continue to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your argument of being a fundamentalist or of being hopelessly deluded.

That's one example. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you anymore, you continue to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with your argument of being a fundamentalist or of being hopelessly deluded.

I would appreciate in that case if you didn't do that in the third person either. Btw, I thought you were rude first (#188 and 189). Considering that this whole thing was in response to the question "What is hindu fundamentalism" and my whole argument is that it is delusional of hindus to think their religion can be respected by making it all true, your comment does not sound fair.

199
International hindu/yoga orgs are ISKCON, Gaudiya Math, Osho's org, Shivananda's org, Integral Yoga, Yoga Amrit Desai's org, Yogi Bhajan's org, and the hundreds of others..... lots of peeps from Jewish background.

I would be very surprised if people of the Judaic faith went to Osho's organization(more like a cult). I know what I going to say will be very controversial but I am puzzled myself. Sorry to say this and I don't want to hurt people's feelings and beliefs, but Osho (before he passed away due to AIDS) or Bhagavan Rajneesh said anti Semitic jokes. He also made his followers poison the salad bar of an Oregon restaurant. Maybe the Osho organization has changed but I would beware of anything to do with that group. Simply Google OSHO and Bhagavan Rajneesh and you might find a laundry list of unsavory items. The other groups mentioned seem innocent. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Maybe the Osho group (like most Hindu organizations) may have some great ideas and service to the poor, etc. However, the origins of this group are a bit suspicious. I feel groups like this set Indians and legitamite Hindus back. (Most of you may be too young to remember Oregon's "Bag the Bhagvan" movement.)

Personally, anytime a person says something anti Semitic, I would stay far away from them and I would question their sanity.

anytime a person says something anti Semitic

I would hope you'd stay far away from them and question their sanity if they said anything anti-[enter ethnicity here],

unless you suggest anti-semitism is worse then insulting other groups. Of course, the word semitic used to describe jewish is itself a misnomer, as it's a linguistic stock, including arabic. Hence, arabs are semites, and much of the anti-arabic diatribe coming out of israel is itself, anti-semitic.

In response to HMF #206. Of course, I hate anything that is offensive and degrading to ANY ethnic/racial/gender/etc. group. And I always knew that Semites include Arabic people, Jewish people, etc.

That wasn't clear from your original message, then given that knowledge, isn't using the word 'anti-semitic' to represent anti-jewish sentiments, actually quite wrong?

The general tone of my opponents is that all religions are respect worthy. This is logically and emotionally not possible from within religions.

This is the true fundamentalist conception of a religion. Or as people in the judiciary call it, "taking a strict constructionist approach".

the idea that "all religions are respect worthy" is a noble lie, a necessary evil as plato infomed us designed to keep the savages from killing each other. some subjects, like IQ for example, should be off limits to regular people, and perhaps even some non-regulars like james watson. now, i hereby declare that only camille and razib are allowed to speak of religion. the rest of you, kindly stfu. you're not worthy.

No, using the word "anti-semitic" to represent anti Jewish sentiment is not wrong.
The term Semite can refer to people (and languages) of Arabic AND Jewish origins as well as some other cultural groups in and around the mideast from what I understand.

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic
and http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/semitic (an online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary).

No, using the word "anti-semitic" to represent anti Jewish sentiment is not wrong.

I meant exclusively, to represent Jewish-targetted diatribe. because in 99.99% of the instances, thats what it's used to represent. For example, if an arab criticizes isreal, it's deemed anti-semitic, but from that word alone, he could be insulting himself, as he is a semite. I'm saying, if you mean anti-jewish, why not say anti-jewish?

Bess, re

but I promise not to be glib with you this time. I say yes, absolutely. You can be an adherent to the religion as you interpret it. You are simply not an adherent to the tenets as interpreted by the fundamentalists.

I did not view your comments as glib - on the contrary, I thought your comment about being "precocious" was mildly flattering and certainly nostalgic since it brought back memories of my mother's defense of yours truly during my childhood!:)

And so what if the fundamentalists say you are not an adherent to the religion? Be firm in your own beliefs and look for a community of like-minded individuals to give you company, to validate your beliefs (if that is what you're seeking.)

The extension of this would be that anyone can pick and choose fundamental tenets of any faith and yet claim to be an adherent to that faith. Even I, with my liberal view of this and other issues, find that a bit of a stretch. I really don't need validation of my beliefs but I will not quarrel - nor take offense - at any Christian who suggests that my rejection/modification of certain fundamental tenets of Christianity makes my claim to be a Christian dubious. To have a doctrinaire belief in any religion requires total faith. I have a certain admiration for those who can do this, although it does require a certain level of intellectual detachment to reach that point - something that it is unlikely I will ever be able to accomplish.

Camille,

That said, I was referring to the multitude of other religions that hold "respect for other religions" as a tenet of the faith

If the central tenet of a religion is that it is the only "true" faith, can it then be said that it holds "respect for other religions"? If so, then it is a rather dubious form of "respect". I am not just singling out Christianity in this regard.

The general tone of my opponents is that all religions are respect worthy. This is logically and emotionally not possible from within religions.

This is the true fundamentalist conception of a religion. Or as people in the judiciary call it, "taking a strict constructionist approach".

I specifed from within religions. Because they are so belief-centric. I agree there are more enlightened ways to look at this but they mostly have to do with common sense, not so easily to be found when it comes to matters religious.

This thread is among the most intelligent discussions SM has ever hosted. I learned a lot from Divya, Nala, Camille, Meera ke Prabhu, notsoyoungdesi and some others. To make it even better, personal assaults were minimal to non-existent, SM Intern didn't have to step in even once, commenters stayed on the topic and a good time was had by all. Keep up the great work, people.

I assume many of you have read "Holy Cow" by Sarah McDonald.

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Cow-Adventure-Sarah-Macdonald/dp/0767915747

HMF@202:

Those are three cities, in the entire country, Id like to know what percentage constitutes "full of israelis"

Not trying to quantify percentages here, but what Meera ke Prabhu said seems to be right in spirit: Haaretz and YNetNews.

Beyond that, I state no opinion on the topic.

If the central tenet of a religion is that it is the only "true" faith, can it then be said that it holds "respect for other religions"? If so, then it is a rather dubious form of "respect". I am not just singling out Christianity in this regard.

Sorry for my outburst too, Camille. My posts sound confusing because I'm trying to say that from within the position of particular religions, Hinduism will always come across as a pale and errant variant *at best*.

Also, notsoyoungdesi, I thought about your question, and I would even extend my argument to Abrahamanic religions. While there are certainly a large number of Muslims and Christians (perhaps even the majority or a supermajority within their faith communities) who believe that their religion is the only true or valid faith, I might many who do not believe this and who hold respect for other faiths. I wonder if, through dialogue and a vested interest in interfaith communication, this idea of religious supremacy breaks down. I'm not that hopeful, but I do think some people dismiss this interpretation of their faiths the same way they dismiss the completely obsolete rules in Leviticus.

Not trying to quantify percentages here, but what Meera ke Prabhu said seems to be right in spirit: Haaretz and YNetNews

Its funny, these two articles if anything, contravene meera's point of Israeli respect for India and Hinduism. I mean, it makes no statement on the respect or lack-there-of for the religion, but makes strong points on cultural respect. I met someone who lived in Israel for 5 years (a south asian) and described it as the 51st state of USA.

Either way, even if Israelis backpack through India - doesn't say anything about the level of 'respect' they have for Hinduism, and certainly white american jews are no more or less disproportionately respectful to it, as it is a non-Abrahamic faith.

210 · Manju said

the idea that "all religions are respect worthy" is a noble lie, a necessary evil as plato infomed us designed to keep the savages from killing each other. some subjects, like IQ for example, should be off limits to regular people, and perhaps even some non-regulars like james watson. now, i hereby declare that only camille and razib are allowed to speak of religion. the rest of you, kindly stfu. you're not worthy.

Manju are you like a global Admin at Sepia Munity or something?

205· gm said

Personally, anytime a person says something anti Semitic, I would stay far away from them and I would question their sanity.

208· HMF said

isn't using the word 'anti-semitic' to represent anti-jewish sentiments, actually quite wrong?

211· gm said

No, using the word "anti-semitic" to represent anti Jewish sentiment is not wrong.
The term Semite can refer to people (and languages) of Arabic AND Jewish origins

HMF, it seems your attempts at nickel-and-dime dialectic are missing the point and in the process you may be shooting yourself in the foot. ;) When GM clearly established that your comment (refering to anti-Jewish sentiment as anti-Semitic sentiment is "actually quite wrong") is, ironically, actually quite wrong :) and you admit as much by squirming sideways to:

212· HMF said

I meant exclusively, to represent Jewish-targetted diatribe. because in 99.99% of the instances, thats what it's used to represent.

I don't recall GM claiming he/she was addressing Jews exclusively? And even if he/she were, how does it matter, when GM's substantive point is crystal clear - that he/she does not support ethnic hate? How does a pissing contest contribute to the dialog, or help establish your credibility?

Here's another part of this thread where you attempt the constructionist approach, and ended up dissing yourself:

196 · HMF said

Plus, so many Israelis hang out in India and get into the whole yogic/meditationa/cool aspects of Hinduism vibe,

202 · HMF said

New Delhi, Manali, Goa, are full of Israelis

While Meera Ke Prabhu is clearly narrating his/her personal anecdotal experience of the Israeli tourist/soldier-hippie brigade(yes this demographic really does exist in Israel!) in India, you first tell MkP he/she is wrong, then accuse him/her of extrapolating from three cities to a country, ask for percentages to support the anecdotes...but it gets better!

Next you proceed to conflate Judaism with American Jews you have met, build your world-view of Judaeo-Hindu relations based on these encounters, throw Jewish students of Bikram yoga out of the religion since they are now pagans, and then perform the most nonsensical reductionism yet on this thread - "white American Jews on the whole really don't "respect" non-Abrahamic faiths any more than Xtians and Muslims"!! Uhhh...let's see, I'd like to see some percentages to support that brilliant induction ;)

My point - this forum is meant for exploration. Clearly you are exploring your understanding of logic and elenchos. Let others explore their take on theology and tourism! For instance, see my exploration of the limits of run-on sentences above :D All with good humor and blogvibes transmitted!

221 · lion said

worthy.

Manju are you like a global Admin at Sepia Munity or something?

I'm a Sepia Mutiny Deity. Criticism of me is therefore out-of-bounds.

Amen to Harlem Sun! (#222)

196 · HMF said

I dont live there so I don't know, but in the times I've visited, I haven't seen any Israelis.

PS: How exactly did you look for Israelis in your extensive India travels, did you spot the star of Davids tattoed on their foreheads? ;)

the idea that "all religions are respect worthy" is a noble lie, a necessary evil as plato infomed us designed to keep the savages from killing each other. some subjects, like IQ for example, should be off limits to regular people, and perhaps even some non-regulars like james watson. now, i hereby declare that only camille and razib are allowed to speak of religion. the rest of you, kindly stfu. you're not worthy.

So what say you, O Divine Lord Manju, on the matter of what makes a religion worthy of respect?

Manju ki Jai!

223 · Manju said

221 · lion said

worthy.

I'm a Sepia Mutiny Deity. Criticism of me is therefore out-of-bounds.

We're all Avatars in Hinduism, got to love the polytheistic aspect of the religion.

226 · nala said

So what say you, O Divine Lord Manju, on the matter of what makes a religion worthy of respect?

religion should not be an opiate of the people, just allow the people to smoke opium

religion should not be an opiate of the people, just allow the people to smoke opium

so you're saying that no religion is worthy of respect? i'd agree with you, but that's not going to happen, so i don't see what your point has to do with the issue of trying to be objective when it comes to teaching about different religions.

Manju, in your vision of the ideal world (one withour religion), would it look anything like this?

Next you proceed to conflate Judaism with American Jews you have met,

No I don't. Maybe you should learn to read as well as write.

In post #196, i write: "My experience is limited to white American Jews"

The context of my qualification was in fact to ensure I don't conflate it with the entire judea faith, rather just qualify them to white american jews that I have come across with (and I lived in a heavily jewish population, all members of 'white flight')

Uhhh...let's see, I'd like to see some percentages to support that brilliant induction ;)

aha. your true stupidity rears its head. isn't it obvious that's a editorial comment? Especially taken in conjunction with my original statement, "my experience is limited..."

Where as to state "Israelis are all over India" is an objective, non-opiniated statement, easily verifiable. (or at least easier)

HMF, it seems your attempts at nickel-and-dime dialectic are missing the point

How is this nickel and Diming, I agree it's tangential to the central point. but do you have an answer to the question? and of course, the answer is no.

Clearly you are exploring your understanding of logic

clearly you are in need of some logic exploration yourself.

process you may be shooting yourself in the foot

If I'm shooting myself in the foot, you have clearly blown yours off with an RPG.

nala:

my only serious point on this thread is that rall cartoon reads, at least if one is not familiar with ralls work, as a defense of huckabee...ie a request that the left accord fundamentalist christians the same cultural sensitivity that they accord non-christian fundamentalists. there is a growing movement, as evident by a recent UN resolution, to suppress ant-religious speech as hate speech, which necessitates a double standard depending on the perceived power of the religion.

for example, the recent squabble over the term islamofascism where the very people who use the term in its most colloquial (meaning right-wing authoritianism) and all-encompassing way (bush as fascist, christian conservatives as fascist) are suddenly up in arms when the term is applied to OBL or the Taliban.

but rall seems to be completely unaware of this phenomenon, reminding me of fox news commentators who complain that the MSM doesn't cover this or that, completely oblivious to the fact that they contradict themselves in the very moment they complain.

Camille, the Abrahamic religions comprise over one half of the world's population and given this, the varying levels of rigidity that these religions embrace as being the "true" faiths argue against being respectful of other religions. I don't know what percentage of the adherents of these religions take the more encompassing view that you referred to in your posting.

Hinduism and its variants are among the most tolerant of faiths - except for the Hindu fundamentalists who in some respects are not dissimilar to fundamentalists of the Abrahamic religions. But then, I have known Hindus who describe Hinduism as more a philosophy than a religion.

I wonder if, through dialogue and a vested interest in interfaith communication, this idea of religious supremacy breaks down. I'm not that hopeful, but I do think some people dismiss this interpretation of their faiths the same way they dismiss the completely obsolete rules in Leviticus.

I attend a church in the US that is very liberal in its approach and makes serious efforts to encourage interfaith dialogue. However, I am less than optimistic that this can become the norm. Besides, despite the generally inclusive aspect of this church, I would suspect if you asked members of the congregation, most would probably maintain that the route to salvation is through Christianity.

The evangelical movement - which is the most rigid in its doctrines - has made and is making serious inroads in terms of conversions in many parts of the world and especially Latin America. Depending on the source one relies on, it is said that Islam - another faith that is rigid - is now the fastest growing religion in the world by virtue of conversions and a higher birth rate.

Is it the need for "moral certitude" in the context of the rigidity that provides the appeal of evangelical Christianity and Islam?

but rall seems to be completely unaware of this phenomenon

because it doesn't exist? i actually agree with you that some people are more likely to give islam a pass in a way they wouldn't for christianity (in fact they go all out and mock it), but i don't really see this with hinduism. i think you're hanging with too many 'oh my god i love indian culture, chicken tikka masala is so tasty, i live off my trust fund and barely work and ironically wear che guevara t-shirts while having an alanis morrisette-level understanding of irony' types.

because it doesn't exist? i actually agree with you that some people are more likely to give islam a pass in a way they wouldn't for christianity (in fact they go all out and mock it), but i don't really see this with hinduism.

well, hinduism is sort-off off the radar here in america, and islam a better example, as the recent UN resolution singles out islam for protection from criticism. But allan bloom, in the closing of the American mind, asks his students (u of chic) what they would do about sati if they were British administrators. all they could respond is that the British shouldn't be there in the first place. there in lies the conflict, between ant-racism and liberalism, multiculturalism and feminism.

i think you're hanging with too many 'oh my god i love indian culture, chicken tikka masala is so tasty, i live off my trust fund and barely work and ironically wear che guevara t-shirts while having an alanis morrisette-level understanding of irony' types.

the skiing great in telluride

the skiing great in telluride

and colorado is next to utah

HMF@231: How is this nickel and Diming, I agree it's tangential to the central point.
but do you have an answer to the question? and of course, the answer is no.

Ok, since you ask so nicely :)

If you agree that you went tangential to GM/MkP's theses, you copped a plea to nickel-and-dime blather (sorry if dialectic or elenchos confused you - let's just use debate), i.e. inconsequential debate with no material illumination on the thesis. Btw I notice you didn't address the entire first 50% of my post, where I note how you proceeded to prove yourself wrong, by first establishing that Semites subsume Jews, and then brilliantly inquiring:

HMF@108: isn't using the word 'anti-semitic' to represent anti-jewish sentiments, actually quite wrong?

Sorry, I digress. As requested, here are some examples of nickel-and-dime debate (so you can measure against the definition above):

HMF@231: isn't it obvious that's a editorial comment?

See I usually assume editors can use articles correctly with vowels. Probably why I missed this erudite editorial. Won't happen again.

HMF@202: rather they just don't make a point to remind you you're final destination
I know editors don't confuse their contractions and their possessives, so let's see... this sentence must mean - Jews just don't make a point to remind you that you are the final destination? Deep.

HMF@231: The context of my qualification was in fact to ensure I don't conflate it with the entire judea faith, rather just qualify them to white american jews that I have come across with

I'm lost...did you mean you came across the red sea with these nice suburban Jews? Btw is it true that grammar school in these "white flight" neighborhoods are excellent?

Now, some contrast. A substantive debate, not nickel-and-dime, involves a negotiation of ideas:

HMF@196: I dont live there so I don't know, but in the times I've visited, I haven't seen any Israelis. My experience is limited to white American Jews, none of which have taken a disproportionate interest in Hinduism.

Ah those friendly Jews you came across with. My observation is that "white American Jews" are frequently not Israeli. And that Israeli soldier-hippie-tourists in India -- the demographic under discussion by MkP -- frequently forget to doff their yarmulkes and sing hava nagila on the streets of Goa and Manali. It seems that MkP has some anecdotal experience indicating that Israeli Jews have an interest in the mechanics of Hinduism. Just because tourists in India can't spot them doesn't appear to contra-indicate this. I'd be interested in learning more MkP.

HMF@202: but once they assert themselves in these organisations, they are no longer Jewish, culturally or religiously. In any event, white American Jews on the whole really don't "respect" non-Abrahamic faiths any more than Xtians and Muslims, rather they just don't make a point to remind you you're final destination of being eternally barbecued.

Isn't this a circular argument? If an Israeli Jew shows interest in Hindu philosophy or practice, then by your (lack of) logic he or she is no longer a Jew, so they cannot be counted as Jewish interested parties in Hinduism? Ergo no Jew can ever be counted as a student of Hinduism - a tautology. Btw, my personal experience of "white American Jews" and their levels of interest in Hinduism and Buddhism is exactly opposite yours, but that is just one data point. I would defer to MkP and gm since they have real-world experience. Don't be staying up all night with that thesaurus now ;) G'night!

proceeded to prove yourself wrong, by first establishing that Semites subsume Jews, and then brilliantly inquiring:

And then I brilliantly clarified, I meant in an exclusive sense, because practically speaking. . that's what is done. How many times have you heard semite or semitic to be used to describe arabic peoples, other than when someone is making a point that it does indeed include them?

See I usually assume editors can use articles correctly with vowels.

interesting tactic, can't answer the point. so "nickel and dime" on the grammar.

Btw is it true that grammar school in these

oh this is much too much. i can't wait for the actual response.

Just because tourists in India can't spot them doesn't appear to contra-indicate this

I never said it did, but it doesn't support it either, in fact, I said, "if anything it contravene's it"

If an Israeli Jew shows interest in Hindu philosophy or practice

Not interest, try reading the actual quotes you pull. I said "assert themselves" this clearly implies something stronger than just "showing interest"

Don't be staying up all night with that thesaurus now

Maybe when you stop cramming for the next grammar bee, you could take some time to understand two things:

1. This is a blog, not a college entrance exam, so if such a language maven as yourself could find it in his heart to read and understand the actual statements being made and not be clouded by those pesky grammatical errors, it would be great.

2. wouldn't I be staying up with a dictionary over a thesaurus?

Btw, my personal experience of "white American Jews" and their levels of interest in Hinduism and Buddhism is exactly opposite yours,

So your contention is that white american jews (why put this in quotes, the group actually does exist believe it or not) show disproportionate interest in Hinduism and Buddhism? Do you honestly believe its representative of the entire country? It makes much more intuitive sense the other way around, because what would prompt a Jew (who have collectively made efforts to preserve their own traditions) to go out of the way to show interest in other religions.

Maybe you can provide where this data set is geographically located.

Is it the need for "moral certitude" in the context of the rigidity that provides the appeal of evangelical Christianity and Islam?

notsoyoungdesi, about the rise of evangelical Christianity, I think it has to do with its "moral certitude" and if you've been to a service, it's a cathartic experience. It doesn't require much intellectually. Emotionally it can be satisfying to many who were brought up in a religion that is more ritualistic, intellectual and distant.
You mentioned Latin America. I've heard the same that more and more Catholics there are becoming evangelical Christians, I think it's because they seek a religion that feels more intimate/personal and on some level cathartic.
It's growing in the U.S. as well and I sometimes wonder if it's because it fits so nicely into our consumer culture mentality of immediacy: instant salvation, instant path, instant "moral certitude" and its fun!

I also want to add, notsoyoungdesi, that a religion with "moral certitude" can be seen as a comfort to those with a sense of dislocation by modernity. The "old time religion" makes life more familiar.

I am not sneering at creationism at garbage in, either. Just now I read a thread at Overcoming Bias blog where fresh off a tone-deaf and schoolyard-taunting post on Christmas day mocking the Immaculate Conception, the blogger states his belief in Transhumanism and the Singularity.

Are you referring to this one?

I tend towards increasing skepticism of "rational thinking" as any kind of intrinsically superior in terms of relative "Truth" (capital T). Overcoming bias? Such righteousness! Such hubris!

What makes you think its hubris or righteousness? "Sanity" might be more appropriate. Its just that some people don't go out of their way to not offend others. Overcoming bias is a nice blog with very meaningful and well thought out posts with an unusually high intellectual content.

Let me clarify.

In India many Israeli jews participate in Hindu culture and yoga organizations.

In the west, several of the many yoga organizations have many, many members from western jewish backgrounds. They do not neccessarily give up all aspects of their jewish cultural heritage even after taking "initiation" into a hindu, yogic school of thought.

Read "The Jew in the Lotus".

If you roam amongst some of the major yoga orgs just here in USA you might meet with more people of a jewish background than a christian one. That has been my experience with several of them.

The Israeli youths in India have created their own sort of sub-culture and network. They have built a few communities there, they are quite active and organized in Goa, often bringing rabbis over from Israeli to start schools and synagougs, but also remaining very open to some aspects of hinduism, such as meditational techniques and yoga.

It is argued that the open nature of Judaism permits this. One rabbi even argues that you can be an atheist and a jew at the same time without any conflict. Of course their are jews that disagree with that view.

my only serious point on this thread is that rall cartoon reads, at least if one is not familiar with ralls work, as a defense of huckabee...ie a request that the left accord fundamentalist christians the same cultural sensitivity that they accord non-christian fundamentalists. there is a growing movement, as evident by a recent UN resolution, to suppress ant-religious speech as hate speech, which necessitates a double standard depending on the perceived power of the religion.

Camille, the Abrahamic religions comprise over one half of the world's population and given this, the varying levels of rigidity that these religions embrace as being the "true" faiths argue against being respectful of other religions. I don't know what percentage of the adherents of these religions take the more encompassing view that you referred to in your posting.

Is it the need for "moral certitude" in the context of the rigidity that provides the appeal of evangelical Christianity and Islam?
notsoyoungdesi, I understand and agree -- I think this argument over what is "true" undermines a lot of efforts to the other. As I mentioned in my post, I'm sure the number of adherents of those religions who have a more encompassing view is in the vast minority. My only point in contesting Divya's explanation is that it does not hold for all religions, and it certainly does not hold everywhere.

If you roam amongst some of the major yoga orgs just here in USA you might meet with more people of a jewish background than a christian one. That has been my experience with several of them.

Which major yoga orgs? where in the USA? these are very vague statements.

Coming from northern NJ (the state which has the most Jewish children), most Jews more closely identify with Xtian (and in some cases Muslim, but rare) people, rather some have shown interest in non-Abrahamic faiths, however it's not disproportionate in any way.

I do agree though, that they are not as quick to proselytize, or convert as Xtians and muslims, however by and large from my experience, their level of "cultural identity" is fairly high, so really doesn't make too much sense for them to reach out. (from a religious standpoint)

Q: Why did the elephant sit on an orange outside the synagogue?

A: Because he wanted to see the juice come out.

I thought that was hilarious when I heard it in fourth grade, btw.

244 · Camille said

Manju, are you joking? (re: a "defense" of Huckabee? Really!?)

Well, knowing Rall, I figured that's impossible. But that's the only way the cartoon makes sense. Partisans of all stripes often think themselves victims, oblivious to the fact that there are huge swaths of the MSM that think like them. Thus Rall thinks non-christin beliefs are routinely mocked while chistians are protected, which is true in some camps, but the complete opposite happens in others.

iABD thought so too.

Manju, please to take 2 tablets of motrin in case you incur undue bodily strain from the contortions you put yourself through in trying to impute "progressives" (or was it "liberals") with the worst of motives.

As a fan of socialized medicine (HILLARYCARE!, will it soon be OBAMEDICATION?), I dispense this advice to you free of charge.

please to take 2 tablets of motrin

F motrin. might as well go right for the codeine.

Look no further, it's all here folks; ancient history, religion and modern day politics, all working in our favour (and I've got sand in the Sahara to sell you)

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Excellent!

And if you are going to vote at all after seeing this, well, what can be said?

There is not much point berating Divya, her attitude is a fairly accurate representation of a majority of non-hindus of non-Indian origin, and ironically, of most scholars of hinduism in the west as well. I couldn't care less when it comes to religion, but the fact is, something along this lines is true, though not to the same extent, of India studies (both in India and west) as well---and no matter how progressive you are, the two are correlated.

Are you saying that one of the axioms of 'India/Hinduism Studies' is that India/Hinduism is inferior? I'm not really surprised, unfortunately.

Yes. Qualifications are warranted here of course---if you are a historian, with some exceptions, yes; if you are a linguist, by and large no. But in many cases, India studies look more like an exercise in nonscientific entomology than a study about people, thanks to the complete contempt of what the subjects of the study think and no attempt at nuance in understanding some issues.

the skiing great in telluride

149 · Divya said

This, I suppose is the basic predicament. Hindus want so desperately to fit into the Abrahamic model. Sad.

If someone with background in Abrahamic religion want to know Hinduism, I think it is worthy effort to draw parallels with their model to explain it to them. On the other hand, if the person is already decided on what is Hindusim, I don't see a point in fitting it to any model. Everyone can happily get on with life in their relative bubbles. As a native saying goes, you can't wake up a person who isn't sleeping :).

Divya, it seems we have mis-communication problem because of misunderstood intentions. I don't think it adds anything to the discussion at this stage if I go on about why I brought up Panchayatana puja or Adi Shankara.

I am glad to have come back to this thread and read through all the comments. I learnt that Sepia Mutiny could be quite tolerant of OT posts.

254 · Violet in Twilight said

I am glad to have come back to this thread and read through all the comments. I learnt that Sepia Mutiny could be quite tolerant of OT posts.

I am glad you came back, too. To me, this thread wasn't that off-topic. Plus, as has been noted, the conversation was civil and edifying, so of course we were "tolerant" as you put it. :)