obama is a convert to the united church of christ, arguably the most liberal christian denomination in the united states in regards to theology. this is the guy who says he believed in evolution more than he believes in angels (not that there's anything wrong with that!).

Well, you say he also carries a gambler's lucky chit. Does that make him a gambler? ;)

I bet if he does a controlled study he will find that Hanuman is the source of his mojo, the rest of the charms are just along for the ride

The fact that Obama cannot be categorized easily in many aspects is probably causing problems with many white people for the following reason - America's Cultural Clustering

united church of christ, arguably the most liberal christian denomination in the united states

Razib, the UU seems more liberal in practice (judging from their services). And the Universal Life Church is even more so. I guess most people don't really consider these to be Christian. The ULC, for sure, receives plenty of scorn. They don't believe in Christ or even in God.

The Democratic nominee for President carries Hanuman with him for good luck (although to beat McCain, who carries a penny

The God speaks to the current President and the future President is walking the same path. No wonder we have a mess in Iraq, an economy and a dollar that keeps sinking, a social security crisis, energy crisis, stupid farm bills and subsidies, gas tax holidays, endless discussions on guns and week long world creation theories. It all makes sense now!

Not that they are any better east of here.

UU has members that self identify as Christian but UU itself does not purport to be Christian (even though it is an outgrowth of the Unitarian Christian denomination). There are agnostic,atheist,Wiccan,Buddhist UU members. They find value in the social ethics of the Bible and books from other faiths. ULC is more of a gimmick, something that sends ordinations in the mail,they don't claim to be Christian either

I guess most people don't really consider these to be Christian.

the unitarian-univeralist fellowship was rejected from membership in the national council of churches. IOW, they're not a christian denomination, though some unitarian-universalists are self-identified christians. nevertheless, since as unitarians they reject the nicene creed they might still have been rejected because they are outside of the orthodox apostolic christian tradition as defined by the majority of christians (the latter day saints church has the same problem, though their problem is that they take the trinity "too far").

The fact that Obama cannot be categorized easily in many aspects is probably causing problems with many white people for the following reason

he's clearly recognizable i think as a genre of post-national wine drinking cheese eaters :-) (i know whereof i speak) the things obama says, the presuppositions he holds, etc., are pretty good signallers for the fact that he clusters with liberal seculars. he obviously has an african american identity as well, but he seems to "code switch" from what i can tell.

the unitarian-univeralist fellowship was rejected from membership in the national council of churches. . . they're not a christian denomination, though some unitarian-universalists are self-identified christians. nevertheless, since as unitarians they reject the nicene creed they might still have been rejected because they are outside of the orthodox apostolic christian tradition as defined by the majority of christians (the latter day saints church has the same problem, though their problem is that they take the trinity "too far"

Razib,
Thanks for the info., but what is its political salience? Is anyone voting based on the stature of the nicene creed? I mean this as a very friendly question, but why are you so into this stuff, being an atheist? Do these distinctions really matter, politically or economically? Maybe I'm just missing a lot of what's driving politics, but this isn't the sort of stuff most people who I read are on about. . . .

Do these distinctions really matter, politically or economically?

well, as a matter of fact, unitarian politicians have been attacked and denigrated for not being christian, so people complain (taft, adams, etc). it's come up as an issue in kent conrad's (senator, north dakota) races. the fact that around 1/3 of unitarian-universalists are atheists is probably a major issue here, it's a way to have a religious affiliation where you don't have to pretend to believe in god but people probably wouldn't ask you (bob packwood, former senator from oregon, was a unitarian, and i am told by people who went to his church that he was not a believer in god).

as for why i know, you never know when facts are going to be handy.

Is anyone voting based on the stature of the nicene creed?

btw, i'm a little surprised you say this after the romney campaign. many evangelicals were getting emails explicitly about the fact that mormons do reject the nicene creed! (almost all christian churches reject mormon baptism because they consider them a heretical non-christian religion because of such theological heterodoxies)

Razib,
Thanks for the info.--I have to confess that while I'd read about the anti-Mormonism wrt Romney, I never went into enough detail to see or know anything about the nicene creed. LOL, I will have to do a bit of reading up on this--had no idea about this Kent Conrad issue, either--so, thanks again.

There are a good number of self-identified Conservative Unitarian-Universalists. But they are a minority in almost every congregation and would at best fit somewhere a smidgen right-of-centre. Actually quite a few UUAs are in search of a new ideology - even if they are always in search. I have been for about two years now working with a group of UUAs and have found a great deal of resonance from within the group for my ideas such as discarding the left-right spectrum, non-ideological approach to experience. UUAs and then UCCs are the most interesting groups I have met so far. Although at first they seemed to hold the wrong notion that religion is a cultural universal thanks to the overwhelming influence of the ideas of the Protestant Reformation, I have through my discussions with the childrens' grouop and with the grown-ups carved space for my ideas.

"Conservative Unitarian-Universalists."

packwood was a republican. nancy johnson, who was us rep. from conneticut until 2006, was a republican. william cohen of maine was a republican and a UU (his father was jewish by religion, but many jews converted to UUism). there are a non-trivial number of socially liberal/moderate but fiscally moderate/conservative UUs; religious liberalism does not entail political liberalism, though it does correlate with it (conversely, many black americans are religiously conservative but happily vote for the liberal political party). all that said, there were several UU republicans, small business people, who have now switched to being moderate democrats (these were people active in the local republican party who were kind alienated by the sectarian prayers at organizational meetings for the party).

The Unitarians have a long and honourable history in the very centre of mainstream -- well, perhaps the elite -- of American discourse. The established Church of Massachusetts was originally Congregationalist (today's United Church of Christ), being the direct descendent of the original Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and for that matter the original sponsor of Harvard College. But eventually its clergy drifted ever upwards or perhaps, depending on one's viewpoint, outwards, and away its flock, and away from Trinitarianism and into Unitarianism. This was the basis for the Church's disestablishment in the 1820s -- not the Separation of Powers doctrine, which in those days applied only to the federal government. (Like the right to bear arms, the separation of church and state has considerably evolved from the intention of the Framers of the Constitution.) Before the rise of the Evangelical Right to political influence -- possibly as recently as the 1960s; possibly indeed as recently as the 1967 Six Day War -- it was certainly no handicap for a federal politician to be a Unitarian. Or indeed not to profess a "personal relationship with Jesus." Abraham Lincoln himself, indeed, professed only the blandest adherence to Christian doctrine and it wasn't in the slightest an issue.

But in the USA -- perhaps alone among western democracies -- there appears latterly for better or worse been an emphatic departure from the view that leaders' religious faith or lack thereof was anyone's concern. Roosevelt's bland Anglicanism; Truman's untroublesome Southern Baptist affiliation (he drank bourbon copiously and was an avid poker player); Eisenhower's formal accession to Presbyterianism (he'd had a Jehovah's Witness upbringing, eschewed it utterly, and only acceded to formal membership in the Presbyterian Church on the eve of his inauguration); Kennedy's extremely easy relationship with Catholicism (that he had to argue down Norman Vincent Peale, Billy Graham and others during the 1960 election as to the nature of his obedience to the Pope is laughable); Johnson's pan-religiosity (he ostentatiously rejected his mother's Southern Baptist affiliation in favour of the Disciples of Christ but he married an Anglican and throughout his presidency frequently ventured to the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception to pray); Nixon's ostentious flouting of the tenets of his nominal Quakerism; Carter's ostentatiously liberal interpretation of his Southern Baptist creed, despite his image as the most holy roller of presidents; Reagan's never-darken-the-door-of-a-church brand of Presbyterianism; Bush I's bland liberal Anglicanism; Clinton's -- well, we don't need to go there; Bush II's weird sort of adherence that appears to involve adhering to a private program of Bible reading while never darkening the door of a church and certainly not bringing up his children within it...

There is a very tricky attitude in the Bible Belt that latter day politicians must contend with. Let us see how it plays out with Mr Obama as he rationalises his association with his loudmouthed former minister.

(Does it occur to anyone other than me that his, Ms Clinton's, Mr Clinton's and Mr McCain's ostentatious religiosity is more than a little false?)

14 · razib said

there are a non-trivial number of socially liberal/moderate but fiscally moderate/conservative UUs; religious liberalism does not entail political liberalism, though it does correlate with it

In the UUA group I work with, I am about the youngest - and I am middle aged with a college going daughter. Of the Cons.UUA in the group, there are 5 Scandinavian looking types who have been Freedom Riders, and done the Selma Montgomery march. And one of them has even been to S. Africa in its days of oppression - although he won't talk about it. Not surprising at all when you consider Charlton Heston joined the Selma marches, and a very well known Republican Presidential candidate in hte years past was an active member of the NAACP. Among the many influences that have guided current conservatism is Puritanism - the tussle between economic liberals and populists within the conservative circles is a replay of the much older tussles within the European churches from around 1200 to 1600. To build on SN Balagangadhara follow the thread into the maze and you will find every contemporary issue in the Western societies traces back to the dynamics within Christendom.

Re Obama. Glad he's got Hanuman aka Bajrang Bali. But I have a tad more affection for Ganesha - my favourite.

I notice that it is a Thai version of Sri Hanuman that he is carrying. Maybe he should do one better than the action figure and carry a Panchamukha Hanuman! :)

Obama talks about being fascinated by Hanuman in Indonesia and his Indonesian step dad narrating stories about Hanuman in his book Dreams from my father.

It was really disappointing to hear Obama's undivided Jerusalem comment at AIPAC. Thats not change we can believe in. No we cant.

Obama talks about being fascinated by Hanuman in Indonesia and his Indonesian step dad narrating stories about Hanuman in his book Dreams from my father.

It was really disappointing to hear Obama's undivided Jerusalem comment at AIPAC. Thats not change we can believe in. No we cant.

I am more than fine with it, as long as I as a taxpayer don't have to pay for it and the Palestinians can get to their holy sites.I am more concerned with impediments to the economic well being of the Palestinians, halting expansion/dismantling settlements. This is what happens when one faith decides to co-locate (or replace) the holy sites of the aboriginal religion with their own

It is surprising to me to see Obama carrying around these good-luck charms. I thought most church-going protestants, even liberal UCC types, had an aversion to assigning (non-cross) objects supernatural meaning.

It was really disappointing to hear Obama's undivided Jerusalem comment at AIPAC. Thats not change we can believe in. No we cant.

I agree. I know he's trying to get in the good graces of AIPAC-types but did he really have to go that far ? The guy is quite confounding. Maybe he'll pull back from that comment just like he's pulled back a bit from the "talk with my enemies" stuff.

the unitarian-univeralist fellowship was rejected from membership in the national council of churches. IOW, they're not a christian denomination, though some unitarian-universalists are self-identified christians. nevertheless, since as unitarians they reject the nicene creed they might still have been rejected because they are outside of the orthodox apostolic christian tradition as defined by the majority of christians (the latter day saints church has the same problem, though their problem is that they take the trinity "too far").

Unitarians by definition reject the Holy Trinity of Christianity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. That makes them non-christians to all mainstream christians: catholics, protestant or orthodox. Both catholics and protestants burned Unitarians at the stake for their rejection of the Nicene Creed.

Here's something to think about:

Calvin burned the scientist Severitus at the stake as a heretic because he was a Unitarian.

Calvinism was the protestant christian sect to which the Puritan settlers belonged.

The Enlightened men who founded the American Republic rejected Calvinism (and mainstream christianity in general): they were Deists or Unitarians and were considered infidels by the christians of their time such as Patrick Henry. The Founding Fathers of America rejected both Monarchy and Theocracy and insisted on separation of Church and State.

Yet today, we have allowed the christian lobby to hijack America with the false claim that it was founded on "christian principles"; that the men who founded it were all believing christians; that only christians are qualified to run for the highest office!

It was really disappointing to hear Obama's undivided Jerusalem comment at AIPAC. Thats not change we can believe in. No we cant.

The idea that Jerusalem is a holy city of Islam is theologically dubious. Mohammad may have started out making his followers prostrate towards Jerusalem but he changed his mind and turned his back on Jerusalem (literally!) and made muslims prostrate towards Mecca instead, after his falling out with the jews of Medina.

Actually it must have been Allah who changed his mind, since Mohammad is supposed to be merely following his orders......

I love how Obama has completely elevated the national discourse on religion, race and culture in ways never before seen. I can't wait till 2009:)

I thought most church-going protestants, even liberal UCC types, had an aversion to assigning (non-cross) objects supernatural meaning.

this would make sense doctrinally, but really on a personal level people always have their own interpretations. e.g., substantial numbers of christians avow a belief in reincarnation.

It was really disappointing to hear Obama's undivided Jerusalem comment at AIPAC. Thats not change we can believe in. No we cant.

well, if you privilege the middle eastern conflicts over others. how many pygmies were being eaten in the congo last year? :-)

(as a message board where the majority do not subscribe to the abrahamic religions i'm assuming i'm not the only one fatigued by the overwhelming emphasis that the abrahamists place on this conflict in a corner of eurasia when there's a whole lot of misery and injustice to go around in the world which doesn't get the light of day because it isn't associated with a semitic sky-god).

on a personal level people always have their own interpretations. e.g., substantial numbers of christians avow a belief in reincarnation.

Such "christians" would have been burned as witches by the Church in pre-Enlightenment times. The christian scheme of Salvation through blood sacrifice cannot be reconciled with belief in reincarnation.

how many pygmies were being eaten in the congo last year? :-)

This being a desi board why not show some concern for starving bangladeshis (and other desis) instead?

25 · razib said

fatigued by the overwhelming emphasis that the abrahamists place on this conflict in a corner of eurasia

What do we do? Differences of opinion within the Abrahamic fold continue to drag the rest of the world into large scale conflicts. And now oil, sacred places, and apolcalyptic visions converge again in the yoke of Eurasia. Much as the Daoic, Shinto, Dharmic, and other pagan traditions want to keep out, they all need oil. We need history, lots of scientific history, only then will we realise where our attentions should lie - Africa - where all of us are from.

i have no problem with pragmatically admitting that since 50% of the world's population is preoccupied emotionally with palestine that we need to pay attention, especially because of oil. i just get tired when my muslim friends talk about the plight of the palestinians and expect me to care especially much. i'm not a muslim, what do i care about palestinians that i don't are about timorese or congolese? similarly, i don't care much about the fate of israel either; if i was god i'd just give all israeli citizens (including arabs, i don't care) american citizenship and let the palestinians have that patch of sand.

we all bring out own baggage in terms of what we emphasize as human beings. e.g., one assumes that brownz will focus more on relations with india than on latin america, and that colombian americans will keep an eye on latin american relations. but i get irritated when many who are preoccupied with the middle eastern conflict use universal language as if other people should give a damn who controls the "holy city." since america is 85% abrahamic it's a good bet that people will care if you don't know anything else about them, but at least on these boards i would have hoped that people acknowledge that it only matters pragmatically because of the emotional investment people with particular religious presuppositions bring to the table, not because the palestinians are suffering genocide on the scale of what routinely happens in africa, or that the israeli state's survival really matters all that much in the grand scheme of things either. for that matter, how much did arabs give a damn when 2,000 gujarati muslims were killed in 2002 in a pogrom? well, let's be honest, "half-hindu" brown muslims are a lot less significant in the arab mind than arab muslims (though south asian muslims are always eager to pay attention to their arab "brothers").

Calvin burned the scientist Severitus at the stake as a heretic because he was a Unitarian.

Ooops, that should be Servetus.

Besides Michael Servetus other famous scientists who rejected the Holy Trinity of mainstream christianity include Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin.

Besides Michael Servetus other famous scientists who rejected the Holy Trinity of mainstream christianity include Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin.

priestly was a unitarian. in any case, darwin died an agnostic, so rejection of trinity was the least of his issues :-)

we do give the Mideast far more attention than they warrant so with that:.......

I think it is awesome that Obama carries a gold macaca pendant. But for the sake of the general election he should keep it out of sight

28 · razib said

"half-hindu" brown muslims are a lot less significant in the arab mind than arab muslims (though south asian muslims are always eager to pay attention to their arab "brothers").

I have known muezzins and naazims in S.India who have lived and worked in Medina, who speak Urdu at home and are fluent in Arabbic, who would much rather live in India than in S. Arabia. It's not the language. Food is part of the problem, as the higher caste (we can say that) Muslims in South India's leather towns do not eat beef - won't touch the stuff even if starving. The other part as my acquantances told me, "The Rasul will accept us, but not the ones who claim to be from his clan."

25 · razib said

(as a message board where the majority do not subscribe to the abrahamic religions i'm assuming i'm not the only one fatigued by the overwhelming emphasis that the abrahamists place on this conflict in a corner of eurasia when there's a whole lot of misery and injustice to go around in the world which doesn't get the light of day because it isn't associated with a semitic sky-god).

paging alan dershowitz...

paging alan dershowitz...

i'm not anti-israel; i'm a-israel. i don't have any 'solidarity' with the palestinian people that i don't have for any out of the way occupied third world population...which means i don't have any solidarity since i'm not much into international angst. my cynicism was most certainly solidified by reading the economist in the year 2000 and noting a several page spread which mentioned shocking casualities on the order of a few jews and a few dozen palestinians, but later on i noticed a small out of the way box highlighting the situation in the democratic republic of congo where hundreds of thousands had been killed. jews and muslims and to a lesser extent christians care about israelis and arabs killing each, that's human nature. but i don't have to go along with the cultural preferences of other people in terms of how they apportion the worth of life of any given people.

Obama talks about being fascinated by Hanuman in Indonesia and his Indonesian step dad narrating stories about Hanuman in his book Dreams from my father.

It was really disappointing to hear Obama's undivided Jerusalem comment at AIPAC. Thats not change we can believe in. No we cant.

Lest we forget, his mother was an anthropologist and he grew up with the Gita and the Upanishads on the bookshelf right along with the Koran and Bible, so why not a Hanuman in his pocket? It's not a Ganesha murti.

Pretty much everybody has to appease AIPAC to get anywhere in this country.

Sorry, that David Brooks article is the most inane thing I've read recently.

Here is a response from a neuroscientist.

Moreover, if you've actually studied in Buddhism, it doesn't make any sense from that side, either. Buddhist metaphysics is just that -- metaphysical.

Sorry, that critic is a mathematician. Nevertheless, judge for yourself.

David Brooks knows as much about neuroscience as he does about the interior of an Applebees.

I have known muezzins and naazims in S.India who have lived and worked in Medina, who speak Urdu at home and are fluent in Arabbic, who would much rather live in India than in S. Arabia

was in trivandrum with a arab friend a few months ago, a lot of people we spoke to didn't know much english or hindi but were able to speak in broken arabic with my friend. one guy in particular was hindu and had never been outside the country..

my cynicism was most certainly solidified by reading the economist in the year 2000 and noting a several page spread which mentioned shocking casualities on the order of a few jews and a few dozen palestinians, but later on i noticed a small out of the way box highlighting the situation in the democratic republic of congo where hundreds of thousands had been killed. jews and muslims and to a lesser extent christians care about israelis and arabs killing each, that's human nature. but i don't have to go along with the cultural preferences of other people in terms of how they apportion the worth of life of any given people.

I found that surprising too. Any attack in Israel would become a "breaking news" in CNN/BBC etc. whereas similar attacks in say Philippines/Chechenya/Kashmir leave alone conflicts in Africa, would not get that coverage. I guess people have strong feelings if they have some emotional attachment to the region from where their stories / fairytales originated from. :-)

found that surprising too. Any attack in Israel would become a "breaking news" in CNN/BBC etc. whereas similar attacks in say Philippines/Chechenya/Kashmir leave alone conflicts in Africa, would not get that coverage.

That's because human life in the "less developed" (read "non white") world has zero value for the MSM. Actually the BBC should not be lumped into the MSM - they do cover all such incidents. The MSM probably lumps us browns in the same category as cattle. Does their audience want them to cover every barnyard incident?

Tony Blair said he carried a Koran everywhere and was spotted wearing a kalava. So I take these things with a pinch of salt (which I then throw over my left shoulder).

I like Obama for the reasons you mentioned Abhi, his multi-racial, multi-cultural background. But I'm a little disappointed he's clearly so superstitious, with this collection of random rabbit feet. However, I have idolised several sportspeople through my life who were superstitious to the point of comedy. I guess the higher the stakes are, the more people tend to lean on little crutches like this.

Razib I've never agreed with you so completely as with what you've written here. I have frequently bemoaned to friends this apparent duty I'm supposed to feel to place more importance on one particular conflict than all others.

Also, I like the word 'chit'.

That's because human life in the "less developed" (read "non white") world has zero value for the MSM. Actually the BBC should not be lumped into the MSM - they do cover all such incidents. The MSM probably lumps us browns in the same category as cattle. Does their audience want them to cover every barnyard incident?

Well, Chechens are whites too. Infact the name "caucasian race" derives from that region. I don't think the extra importance given to "holy land" is wholly derived from the race factor. It has more to do with the power of the religious stories / fairytales that one grew up with.

34 · razib said

i'm not anti-israel; i'm a-israel.

understood. this is essentially the philosophical justification for Finklestein's scholarship--that one massacre should not subsume all others with it's own remembrance. arguing about it is a drug, though, which is why my home library features a scowling Khalidi rubbing shoulders with Bernard Lewis and Amos Oz giving Amira Hass the evil eye...

41 · DesiDawg said

That's because human life in the "less developed" (read "non white") world has zero value for the MSM. Actually the BBC should not be lumped into the MSM - they do cover all such incidents. The MSM probably lumps us browns in the same category as cattle. Does their audience want them to cover every barnyard incident?

why isn't TOI included in the MSM?

42 · Bong Breaker said

I like Obama for the reasons you mentioned Abhi, his multi-racial, multi-cultural background. But I'm a little disappointed he's clearly so superstitious, with this collection of random rabbit feet. However, I have idolised several sportspeople through my life who were superstitious to the point of comedy. I guess the higher the stakes are, the more people tend to lean on little crutches like this.

as long as it doesn't involve consulting the divine Lakshmi on economic policy or Pandit Charlatan-ji on the future of crude oil pricing, he can rub that little golden monkey all he likes.

I hear what you're saying Razib. But if Obama spoke at the A-Congo-PAC and talked of the fundamental rights of non-Pygmies to lord it over Pygmies, I might be similarly concerned. But, like Nayagan says, arguing about this can be a drug and so I shall say no more.

What a beautiful photograph. Just content aside, it's gorgeously composed and shot, with the shadows of the floor, the glimmering colors of the objects, and the posture of his hands. Props to Brooks Craft of Corbis for such a well crafted photo.

Nobody has remarked that he has a warrior's bracelet, one of the five Ks? I suppose he doesn't wear it. ;-)

I know plenty of hypperrational non-religious scientists who would claim they aren't at all superstitious but do things which, at first glance, look superstitious. They might need to wear a particular ink-stained pair of pants to give a talk, or have a special meal before a presentation, or play a few hands of cards before embarking on a particularly long lab bench protocol. Those of us who are religious often pray for comfort and strength, and when we get that comfort and strength, it helps us to be grateful for it. Others use a charm to focus their mind, and conjure up comfort and strength within themselves. And there's no reason that a rational religious man like Obama can't do both while still being a good Christian.

46 · Nayagan said

he can rub that little golden monkey all he likes.

It is kind of un-christian to be rubbing the monkey, innit? Probably a PR disaster for him to bring this up on the campaign trail.

Razib-Rob-Jyotsana: very nice comments on this post.

Is Barack Obama a secret...Hindu?

But he is perhaps a child molester?

Is Barack Obama a secret...Hindu? But he is perhaps a child molester?

It's a good thing he isn't a secret falafel or halwa, Ibish's weak jaw and prodigious gut are testimony to his lack of restraint

Eh... Why can't he carry something practical like a Swiss Army knife. Never understood the whole lucky charm thing. Rabbit's feet obviously weren't so lucky for the original owner. Why should it be lucky for anyone else...

But if Obama spoke at the A-Congo-PAC and talked of the fundamental rights of non-Pygmies to lord it over Pygmies, I might be similarly concerned.

ah, but would he defend their consumption? that would be the deal-breaker for me :-)

One thing\'s for sure: the rabid Republican defenders of christendom will try to use Obama\'s hindu talisman to paint him as a closet non-christian. Just as they will use his middle name Hussein and his father\'s and stepfather\'s muslim heritage. However, they will face a problem trying to reconcile the hindu monkey god with Islam.

One of the many good things coming out of this election is the marginalizing of the christian lobby\'s political influence. Both Obama and McCain have been forced to distance themselves from christian pastors. It is said that christianity in America is 3000 miles wide but only a quarter inch deep. It should be added that much of what passes for christianity in America has little to do with the Gospel of Christ.

However, they will face a problem trying to reconcile the hindu monkey god with Islam.

no they won't. don't

1) overestimate human cognitive coherency.

2) a large number of americans conflate hinduism and islam. from my look and name many people assumed i was a muslim (e.g., constant questions about 'aladin', etc.), but they also wondered if i worshipped a cow.

p.s. also, my brother's best friend in middle school was from a fundamentalist baptist background and asked him if he worshipped idols with many arms since he was muslim. :-)

Desi-americans and this election:

The Republican\'s best candidate George Allen is forced to withdraw after pointing his finger at an indian-american and calling him a monkey.

Hillary Clinton\'s personal aide is pakistani-american Huma Abedin. Among the Clinton\'s prominent financial backers are (shady?) indian-american tycoons Vinod Gupta and Sant Singh Chatwal.

Obama had a pakistani-american friend and roommate whose home he visited in Karachi. Carries a hindu monkey god talisman for luck.

McCain has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh. If he wins there will be a desi living in the White House.

Governor Bobby Jindal is seriously being considered as McCain\'s running mate.

p.s. also, my brother's best friend in middle school was from a fundamentalist baptist background and asked him if he worshipped idols with many arms since he was muslim. :-)

Aside from these types of ignoramuses, there are those that know the basic theological differences at a religion 101 level but group Muslims & Hindus together using Biblical Genealogy arguments anyway.

23 · sonia said

I love how Obama has completely elevated the national discourse on religion, race and culture in ways never before seen.

Hilarious!

That elevated national discourse on race (in fact, the only position he could have taken - albeit one he did with splendid oratory - even while casually deriding middle class whites soon after that speech) prompted by his wingnut pastor was thrown in the toilet the moment he decided to run scared from said pastor nary a month after the "dialogue". I think very poorly of Obama for disowning his pastor out of political expediency . Let's be clear - Obama stayed in Trinity due to a complex mix of motives. I am sure finding himself personally etc. was a part of it, but certainly, the fact that Trinity was an influential black church, and Jeremiah Wright an important man in that community, significantly helped his political career and he made the most of it, and made the personal decision to stick with Wright despite his other crazy views. However, he cut him loose at the first sign of trouble, first ousting him from his campaign committee, and then disowning/denouncing/rejecting him. Nothing that Wright said in the National Press Club should have been news to Obama, Obama had made his peace with these opinions because of all the benefits - personal and political - the association with Wright had given him. Until he found that Wright was a concrete block holding down his soaring ambitions, and oh dear, insinuated that Obama might be doing what he did out of political necessity. And now he does another fancy two-step and runs scared of Trinity as well.

And he derides old politics, while hiring old Washington hands for his veep search, Hillary's team for his campaign - including Bill Clinton's reviled attack dogs, and at the end of the day, making the magic number because superdelegates, being the self-serving political animals that they are, were too afraid to go against the grassroots movement that gave Obama the early lead in the primaries, something which was enough to keep his nose barely in front, but which he was unable to sustain past February.

Can he spell opportunist? If there is one thing that is constant in the American political landscape, it is that some pied piper comes around every 20 years singing the tune of change. And how people follow him all the way...

you guys have to see behind the veil ..behind the nice talks..the demagouging speeches(i know that word is wrong..but u know wat i mean).....he is a puppet whos the only chance of democrats crap liberals before the conservative revolution takes over the earth...its high time we need a conservative revolution

its funny how people dont see behind the axis of evil: olbermannnnn chris matthews...tim russert..rachel maddows of the world....who created this man......
1)I had talked about obama in 04..even before his charlie rose interview and just after his speech in DNC......since then my affection or pride behind supporting that man has reduced multifold.
Reasons: a)like all sleazes..he wrote two books as stepping stone for VP...and second book almost made liberals and crap journos sure that he is the savior from old politics and crowned him.....and b) his campaign attempts in 07-08...its been no less than cheap...its been a great maneuvering and people fail to see the truth.
2) He is incapable of bringing any change to his senator role...his role in illinois senate before that.i mean there is nothing more than voting extreme right and political punditry that he has done.
3) He has very rightly used all he could to get to where he is.....i dont care if he is god of tricks..

but if he proves himself after 4 yrs of presidency(which looks inevitable now) then i will concede i was wrong.
on the other hand...if americans have any sense and they vote mccain in....i will love to see how this all talk no work man fares in next 4 yrs....
doodh ka doodh paani ka paani ho jayega..
lets wait.

>>Is Obama a secret Hindu?

Considering he thinks that some people are entitled to get something for nothing, no - he's not a Hindu.

M. Nam

I'm not liking the bias against and lumping together of us "abrahamists?" Razib. I'm a christian, but my focus is not Israel, though it is as important as any other part of the world, my worldview involves whats happening in Asia/Pacific (India Pakistan relations, India' national integrity, Burma, SEasia, NKorea/SKorea, love the Pacific want an island all to myself) as well as Africa (Why can't we muscle Sudan into treating its citizens right, instead of wasting our time in Iraq, as well as develop potential allies in Nigeria and Ethiopia and Kenya, countries with potentials and possiblities of greatness) and europe, all I care about is Great Britian and Greece, the rest can burn for all I care (j/k). Muslims might focus more on the Palestinian issue, as well as certain "zionist" christians, but starting that kind of tone as those "abrahamists" is insulting. As much as nobody should lump all the "dharmics" together on a issue (i.e. all those "dharmics" talk about is "Ayodyha" or Bobby Jindal turning is back on this dharmic faith, oh wait the buddhist and jains don't care about that;-)) By using language as "I'm tired of those abrahamists", it creates a hostile environment for us other Indians, get that straight we are Indians, christian to the core, Indian by the grace of God, and being Mallu is like winning the lotto twice (tamils are cool too, Yogi B & Natchatra baby!);-). Stop acting like Indian christians are not in the proverbial room here on Sepia. I like alot of your posts Razib, they are usually well rounded and intelligent, please keep that up by tailoring your language a little better to acknowledge the complexities of being indian and of religious faith. Peace!

62 · MoorNam said

Considering he thinks that some people are entitled to get something for nothing, no - he's not a Hindu.

I always thought Hindus believed in charity for the needy, but maybe it is only Brahmin bhikshus who deserve this kindness, while the others can go f- themselves?

Given your beliefs, I guess you must be one of those old-school Evangelical Christian Republicans.

Considering he thinks that some people are entitled to get something for nothing, no - he's not a Hindu.

According to Moornam, Hinduism is basically libertarianism with some mysticism.

59 · barack the boat said

Can he spell opportunist? If there is one thing that is constant in the American political landscape, it is that some pied piper comes around every 20 years singing the tune of change. And how people follow him all the way..

Is that surprising? Obama is a consummate politician and deserves credit for that. An election is usually choosing the least among a number of evils. Relatively little changes inside the beltway in terms of process; 'change' usually comes about when a critical mass of special interest parties and their janus-faced lobbyists is able to convince a non-trivial section of the public about the immediacy and worth of their agendas. Downstream, grassroots movements are rarely successful or influential (recent counterexamples: The Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam War protests). What remains to be determined is whether voting Obama is an indication of a proactive public consensus associated with concrete political demands (if so, which ones?), or is it just a blind party following the pied piper all the way to Washington.

All..Girl writes: >>I always thought Hindus believed in charity for the needy

I think folks need to understand the difference between charity and entitlement.

Charity is when a person(s) who has something in excess takes pity on someone who does not have anything, and gives a small portion of the excess. It is voluntary, and the recipient is expected to be grateful. "There you go - have this soup and here's some for your kids".

Entitlement is when a person who has nothing demands something from person who has more - as a birthright. It is implemented by force and the recipient is not expected to be grateful. "I want to have foodstamps to buy burgers and fries, and I demand free healthcare to manage diabetis and BP that was caused by the burgers and fries."

AMFD
>>According to Moornam, Hinduism is basically libertarianism with some mysticism.

It isn't??!!

M. Nam

28 · razib said

i just get tired when my muslim friends talk about the plight of the palestinians and expect me to care especially much.

for that matter, how much did arabs give a damn when 2,000 gujarati muslims were killed in 2002 in a pogrom?

THANK YOU!! i do consider myself muslim, but i share your frustration. i did the whole palestinian protest thing in college mostly because we had a really strong pro-israel lobby on our campus (and it was the cool thing to do, of course). but i got tired of the endless pro-pali discussions for the same reason as you, razib. arabs dont give a shit about anyone but themselves. and i don't think it's a muslim issue. it's an arab issue!

"I want to have foodstamps to buy burgers and fries, and I demand free healthcare to manage diabetis and BP that was caused by the burgers and fries."

I know you are using an example, but for the record, foodstams average around $100/per person/per month. That is $3.33 a day or $1.11 a meal. Also you cant use them at fastfoods. Food Stamps Program cost amount to slightly less than 1 percent of the federal budget.

62 · MoorNam said

>>Is Obama a secret Hindu?

Considering he thinks that some people are entitled to get something for nothing, no - he's not a Hindu.

Entitlement is when a person who has nothing demands something from person who has more - as a birthright.

This is coming from a defender of brahminism! In brahminism brahmins are entitled to charity. It is their entitlement by birthright. All other castes especially the untouchables are suffering the negative consequences of their karma and one should not interfere in the unfolding of karma by lifting a finger to alleviate their suffering. Those who visit India for the first time are invariably shocked and horrified by the living conditions that result from such a selfish, callous, cruel and inhumane social system.

Explain how you equate the oppressive hindu caste system with libertarianism??

It would be the great for Obama that he takes support of Hanuman and all other stuff. But after he won If he didn't continue to take care of them then it would be the worst for him.

There's nothing wrong that he had take support of different stuff.

Can't see whether or not he's Christian, but superstitious alright.

72 · Blue said

Can't see whether or not he's Christian

c'mon blue, he's just as christian as jindal

73 · Manju said

c'mon blue, he's just as christian as jindal

obama : jindal :: shirin ebadi : ahmedinejad

70 Vyasa

Troll alert ! - Also you forgot to mention that hindus eat stinky food and dont use any implements!! And the ear hair, eeeuuuu

Brahmins may have an inflated sense of entitlement, but any reasonable observer would see that Hindu traditions emphasize charity - danam - to all very strongly. One gives to the poor at the birth of a child, at their mundan (hair cutting ceremony), at a wedding, and at a funeral.

Your reductionist reading of hindu tradition is pretty much hate speech - you are free to opine this kind of nonsense - but your soul-mates are clearly KKK/Nazi/Bajrang Dal and other ethnic and religous extremist-type people.

Obama's carrying the Hanuman holds significance, not as a religious mark, but as a remnant of the story and the relevance. Hanuman's most renowned qualities from the legends are his devotion to duty, and the absence of ego. The self ceases to exist and only the purpose remains. And a noble purpose it shall be!

I don't think Obama is a Hindu, Muslim or a Christian. He's made it pretty clear that he believes there are many paths to God so he can't be a secret Muslim at least. He flat out said he was a Christian, but does not follow the teachings of Christ in that he believes there are many paths to God. He sounds New Age to me whether he knows it or not.

If he were Muslim, he would be proud of it and not deny it. I have never met a muslim who denied their faith...even if they had never read the Koran. There would be more proof out there than just "the man in a funny hat" photo.

He's not a Christian. Many so called Christian churches don't even teach the bible in it's entirety but rather the nice "lovey-dovey" parts. So just because you go to a "Christian" church, does not mean you think your a sinner and that some guy really did rise from the dead after dying for you. The fact that he believes many paths lead to God should be all the proof any BIBLE believing individual needs. Many people claim to be Christian but don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. That was Christ's teaching...period, so if you don't believe that...you are something other than a Christian.

I'm pretty sure he's not Jewish too.

It would just be nice if people would quit trying to figure out what he does in his religious life. It's not anyone's business and should be between him and God...that is, if there is one. Why is so much effort put on labeling people?

Now there is an idol worshipper. In fact so is McCain. Anyone who needs the luck of material things is away from God. Period. I am ashamed I contributed $100 to the obama campaign. I really thought this Guy was a christian, but later I find he supports abortion. Any self respecting christian cannot possible identify himself with any other religion, after all the main reason some one is a christian is because they know it is only the clean untainted blood of christ that can save that person. However if one is given good luck charms by people, one should rather reject and ask for their prayers. But a politician cannot do this things to disrespect them so he carries it for them, I suppose. Any way our hope is not in a politician, it is rather in christ. AMEN.

Satan was the father of Jesus Christ. Christianity is an inferior religion.

Lord Hanuman is the one true God of mankind.

Christians, convert to Hinduism and your soul will be saved.

The outsourcer.

79 · outsourcer said

Satan was the father of Jesus Christ. Christianity is an inferior religion.

Lord Hanuman is the one true God of mankind.

Christians, convert to Hinduism and your soul will be saved.

The outsourcer.

What hole did you crawl out of??? I prefer not to worship the Gods who lead to the starvation of people so the cows and rats can be saved...that's just common sense! What a tool.

He was kidding. He was mocking the guy who posted ahead of him who was being a typical evangelical clown.

I have no sense of humor when it comes to religion...sorry, I didn't catch the sarcasm. But I don't think just because someone is a Christian they are an "evangelical clown". Now, that's not to say there aren't any clowns and wolves out there...because there are lots of them (the Christian church is riddled with them) and they make the true ones look really really bad. I'm just saying that nothing in his statment sounds clownish to me...

11-day Prayer For Obama's Success

BY: STAFF CORRESPONDENT

Jun 24, NEW DELHI, INDIA (THE HINDU) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama can now expect help from an unexpected quarter - Lord Hanuman. All-India Congress Committee member Brij Mohan Bhama has organised a 11-day religious ceremony at Karol Bagh here for his success in the U.S. elections.

The idea of sending an idol of Hanuman dawned on him after friends in the United States mentioned a “prominent American politician who carried a miniature Hanuman idol in his pocket for luck,” Mr. Bhama said speaking on the first day of the ceremony on Tuesday.

“After hearing that, I decided to gift Mr. Obama a larger, gold-plated version along with the wishes of thousands of his supporters in this country,” said the leader struggling to lift the 15 kg, 21-inch brass idol.

The first-day ceremony, pranapratishta, or infusion of divine life into an idol, was performed by a dozen priests reciting mantras in tandem. It was attended by Democrats Abroad India chairperson Carolyn Sauvage, who spent over an hour at the venue. The idol was later kept in the sanctum sanctorum of the Sankat Mochan Dham, where it will be kept for 10 more days. Mr. Bhama said several temples in New Delhi had already expressed an interest in keeping the idol for worship on their premises before it begins its journey across the Atlantic.

Along with the idol, a copy of Hanuman Chalisa, a compilation of hymns in praise of the Lord, would be sent.

“We will ensure that Mr. Obama receives the idol by August 24, a day before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado,” said Mr. Bhama.

From http://www.sampradayasun.com

Well, chastising Obama as an 'idol worshipper' simply because he carries a good luck charm that probably has some relevance to his childhood in Indonesia and exhorting about the fantastic "clean, untainted blood" all typify clownish behaviour, at least in my book.

Also, in memory of the greatest comedian who ever lived: http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

I think what he is getting at is that since Obama claims to be a christian, he would know that the Bible has lots to say about idols made from mens hands and the consequences of being involved with them in any way...that's how I took it anyway. I think if Obama didn't make those "Christian" claims, no one would even care about what is in in pocket. Nah, I take that back, they would probably still speculate. What I don't understand is that Christians want to believe he is a Christian. Hindu's want to believe he is Hindu etc. People want to identify with him in some way, and are willing to ignore the parts of him they can't identify with. But whatever he is, it isn't any sort of "pure" belief system in that he kinda mixes a little of everything (the hindu monkey man and the virgin with child stuff in his pocket is a good example). It's like he wants to make sure that if he is wrong...he is still covered??? Fire insurance I guess. Or maybe, he just wants everybody to get along and sing camp fire songs while drinking coca cola and holding hands.
OR...maybe he thinks it's all just a load of horse maneur but thinks it will help him get elected.

86 · kit said

But whatever he is, it isn't any sort of "pure" belief system in that he kinda mixes a little of everything (the hindu monkey man and the virgin with child stuff in his pocket is a good example). It's like he wants to make sure that if he is wrong...he is still covered??? Fire insurance I guess. Or maybe, he just wants everybody to get along and sing camp fire songs while drinking coca cola and holding hands.