I bet you are all wondering (well at least those that swing from a particular side of the plate) what’s under that forbidden black box (who says SM only features pics of hot women?). Seyd tips me off to yet another one of those “I can’t believe they put a Hindu icon on that,” controversies (see previous 1,2). Now my position on this is that I personally don’t care one way or another since I don’t concern myself with religious icons. Other people get upset and sue over this stuff and it’s their prerogative to do so. So what is the situation here? Rainbownetwork.com has the details:
DNA Magazine, Australia’s top gay publication, has censored their latest cover in an effort to quell outrage from the Hindu community.The cover features male fitness star Matt Walch wearing a Roberto Cavalli brief that is screen printed with an image of the Hindu goddess Laxmi.
In a letter to the Hindu community, Editor Andrew Creagh, apologized for the offence and let it known that the magazine had no “deliberate intention to cause offence, antagonize or show disrespect to people of the Hindu faith.”
He added that the magazine was “unaware that the garment portrayed a specific Hindu deity.”
That sounded like a pretty sincere apology. I mean he’s not going to pull the magazine off the shelves or anything because then they’d lose money, but at least on their website there is a black box over the bacon. What truly offends me is that the picture is of the goddess Laxmi. If they had even half a brain they would have more appropriately offended the Hindu community by using an iconic image of the Hindu diety that is associated with the Lingam.
Also, although I’ve been meaning to invest in a good thong, I don’t think that I would buy this design. The last thing I need is for a conflicted Hindu girl to re-discover religion at the…ummm…wrong moment.
So you guys want to see what is under that black box? Click below (might not be safe for work).
And in case you have poor vision:
Seyd asks:
I wonder who’s the Hindu community they are referring to. The straight Hindu community? More than likely, because I checked several gay Desi sources and the magazine has slipped under their radar. Which makes me think, how did the straight Hindu community hear about this? Suspicious…
I would also like to say that Comcast bites. Sorry about the double post.
“With atheism, it is really difficult to play in-between.”
Atheism isn’t an “ism” any more than “Not believing in the tooth fairy”-ism.
…And Saheli! Wow!
Can you explain this further. I did not understand
they wouldn’t put a picture of jesus on a dude’s underwear. one can say this is because they are christianly biased, but they wouldn’t put a picture of muhammed or verses from the koran either. hinduism is a source of mirth and jocularity for many people from monotheistic (religious or not) backgrounds. ganesh and hanuman are especially humourous.
a christian, muslim or jew might think members of the other abrahamic religions are wrong, but they operate from common references. hinduism is outside those references, it uses difference terminology and elicits (crucially) cognitive associations with pre-monotheistic pagan religions who are universally held in scorn and disrespect by christians, muslims and jews.
let me give examples. muslim males may marry christian and jewish women, but they may not marry those of other religions (hindus, buddhists, etc.). muslims may not take food from pagans, though they may take food from christians and jews. jews may not have anything to do with idolatry and paganism, so there was a debate whether synagogues could be sold to christian religious orders who might use them for christian services. the general resolution among the ashkenazi jews was that christian churches were not pagan temples. in contrast, there was a recent issue where orthodox jewish women could not buy hair imported from india because the hair was often given in offering to hindu temples, which most certainly was a pagan association. christians of a more conservative bent might term muslims and jews followers of false religions, but they are likely to consider buddhism and hinduism superstition.
in other words, the common roots of the monotheistic religions mean that reverence toward christianity (or sensitivity toward christian norms) is easy to expand and apply to the prophets of judaism or islam. what prophets does hinduism have? rishis and gurus do not really fit. the ridicule that hinduism is held up to, i hold to most religions. christians find hindu conceptions of immanent godhood within humans blasphemous, but often forget that their own religion is based on that in the case of jesus. these sort of cultural biases are tiresome.
Translation: People who do not believe in God can be people who believe in a pantheistic(two or more Gods) belief system.
most discussions dealing with religious definitions are ridiculous because the terms themselves are imprecise. to me
1) theism = belief in a personal god 2) monotheism = belief in one personal god 3) polytheism = belief in personal gods 4) henotheism = worship of one god, belief in many 5) deism = belief in an impersonal god (prime mover) 6) pantheism = belief in the immanence of god within the cosmos (god is the universe, the universe is god)
with those definitions in mind, i reject 1-4 for a variety of reasons, am agnostic on 5 and think that 6 is semantic juggling.
re: my assertion about atheist hindus. my understanding is that the ultimate end of hinduism is moksha (liberation from the cycle of rebirth), not personal salvation via a divine intercessor. ergo, a god-being is not a necessary condition of the ends of the hindu religion, a karmic conception of the universe is. so i have read that rejecting karma is the true hindu cognate of atheism in reference to the abrahamic religions. with that said, my sympathies would be with the anti-karmic naturalistic carvaka school of philosophy. nevertheless, hindus have told me that they consider carvaka a hindu philosophy!
I disagree, perhaps I’m meaning the same thing as you but in different terms of speech but ‘Universal Soul’, to me, differs greatly from ‘Personal God’. The bottom line in Hinduism is attaining salvation, a freedom from the cycle of rebirth. The Universal Soul is what everything is born of and that is what remains. Personal God is not a presence onto itself, it is a means through which one achieves knowlege of the Universal, thereby earning liberation. A way of becoming one with the Universal or however you would like to describe it.
The two sound the same but there is a difference in practice, no? Things like prayer, where a Personal God is invoked by performing the suitable rituals. With the Universal, prayer seems to me to be less ritualistic and often, as a result, harder.
the debate about the nature of hinduism is of course neither here nor there. the salient point is that it makes sense why hindus would be hurt by this. it also makes sense why hindus would have their religion be treated like a pop culture prop. where the interaction of hinduism with western culture goes is up to hindus. myself, my common response as an equal opportunity unbeliever is to simply demand that monotheists who hold hinduism up to ridicule look in the mirror. i certainly try and hold it up to them.
Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone.
The bottom line in Hinduism is attaining salvation
The bottom line in Vaishnavism, especially Gaudiya Vaishnavism, is attaining Bhakti or Prem–love of God. Salvation or Moksha is considered a byproduct which is often held in contempt for its ability to distract from this more fundamental goal. There is no desire to becoming one with, there is union through loving interaction.
Look, I’m not saying that there are not other brands of Hinduism. The brand you describe exists and is common. But I am saying that my brand–the Vaishnav brand–exists and is also significant. And I don’t want it to be misrepresented or denied.
Ritual, of course, can be empty, but it doesn’t have to be and I find it disrespectful to assume that it always is.
“myself, my common response as an equal opportunity unbeliever is to simply demand that monotheists who hold hinduism up to ridicule look in the mirror. i certainly try and hold it up to them.”
Hear, hear, Xtianity is just as pagan. Let’s have no talk of talking-burning-bushes unless it’s in sex ed 😎
Xtianity is just as pagan.
it is not publicized because in the christian west it would be impolitic, but privately many jews and muslims have told me that they do not consider christianity to be monotheism because the dominance of trinitarianism and both have contempt for the “idolatry” common in older christian traditions (ie; statuary in roman catholicism and iconography in eastern orthodoxy). muslims and jews universally recongize each other as monotheists of course.
I think it’s tragic how the magazine has pasted someone else’s head on Ennis’ body.
Do you guys read Joseph Campbell?… I read one several years ago, called Masks of God, and if I remember correctly, I really enjoyed it.
Anyways, Neha, with regards to boys crotches, I just creepily spied on your site, and thank you for the besharamm nekked boy pics, eh. LOL. I’ve just lost my appetite!
I’m not trying to misrepresent or deny and I was in NO WAY trying to imply that some things are better than others. Nor am I claiming ritual to be empty. I’m just saying that it provides a well thought out routine where as people who deny themselves of this tend to have to start from a ‘scratcher’ scratch. This doesn’t make them more able or superior. In fact, it probably hinders them more than anything. What I meant by the whole salvation bit (but explained so sparely) was that there is an end that counts, as far as Hinduism (any brand) is concerned. Whether that is defined as bhakti through love of a personal god or moksha through knowledge of a universal soul. How you go about it is up to you and noone can waive what it results in. I just think that there is a practical difference between bhakti and jnana, somewhat similar to one between praying by focusing on a certian mantra and meditating on ‘nothing’.
Do you guys read Joseph Campbell?… I read one several years ago, called Masks of God, and if I remember correctly, I really enjoyed it.
i have read that most historians of religion find his metaphorical interpretative style unpersuasive. if you want a cognitive-evolutionary model, check out religion explained or in gods we trust.
Angie, I’m very pleased you enjoyed yourself…EH, haha!
Saheli:
The argument advanced by some (e.g., Nina P.) that Christians are more laid-back is besides the point for the reasons you argue–murtis play a central role in virtually Hindu practice, unlike that of, say, Protestant Christianity. As it happens, this argument is also false: Nina P. doesn’t bother to deal with recent instances of Christian outrage that falsify her thesis. Think of the outrage over Andres Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’ or the controversy over another artists depiction of Mary in cowdung. This outrage, btw, wasn’t limited to the likes of the choleric and perpetually outraged William Donahue (of the Catholic League).
You’re also quite right in describing the nature of Vaishnava theology. My family’s tradition (and so mine) is rather different from yours–we happen to be Shaiva and quite influenced by Purva Mimamsa exegetical principles. I bring this up to underline the general point you make about the varied nature of Hindu belief and practice.
These sorts of battles will have to be fought in every generation, I suspect. And it’s a battle that practicing Hindus are best-equipped to fight.
Kumar
kumar,
i had a friend who had a t-shirt that was a replica of a jesus-madonna scene where mary was cradling the baby…who was depicted as a small alien! there are many non-laid christians (even here in oregon, the #1 atheist state in the nation) who would bitch at him in public places or if he went to get coffee whenever he wore that shirt.
Neha, I almost got sick except Pawan saved me. Wish him good luck in the manhunt contest for me, eh?
Hey Razib, I found that Joseph Campbell satisfied my spirtual yearnings at the time, but I’ll check out your recommendations….
Hey Razib, I found that Joseph Campbell satisfied my spirtual yearnings at the time, but I’ll check out your recommendations….
if you had spiritual yearnings, don’t read what i recommend!
by which i mean those books raison detre is to explain why you have spiritual yearnings in a naturalistic fashion. i don’t know if most people would be down for that sort of thing.
I said spiritual, not religious. Does that make a difference?
Never mind, I just read a review of Boyer’s book and it actually has parallels with Campbell – just a bit more of a historical context, it seems.
Sounds cool. What did you think of it?
I said spiritual, not religious. Does that make a difference?
the two books that i suggest focus on the psychological aspects of religious belief and experience. ego, they don’t focus much on institutional religiosity aside from some exploration of the role of ritual and group conformity.
what i’m trying to say that the books above try to describe in the context of human beings as biological beings with an evolutionary history and a particular mental hardware why belief in gods and other supernatural phenomena seem like human universals. implicitly there is an assumption that said supernatural phenomena is a byproduct of quirks of the human cognitive process. here is a precise of the second book above (you don’t really have to read much more than this paper really).
Sounds cool. What did you think of it?
well, i think boyer makes a lot of sense and i lean toward that model. but, i think that one has to distinguish between the exoteric (outward) aspects of religion, which are very diverse from population to population, and the esoteric (inward aspects) of religion, which are not that diverse between populations but are very diverse within populations (boyer and atran tend to focus on this). that is, particular rituals and beliefs of the different religions differ a lot, so a christian is much more similar to another christian than either is to a muslim, but all religions have a range of individuals, from mystics like theresa of avila, to rationalists like thomas aquinas, to your standard typical pass-the-plate-episcopalian.
I haven’t updated the post yet but Turkey won today. Pawan and the female Indian entry apparently recieved about 30 secs of talk time with the judges overall. This blows as there was NO question/answer period in the pagent itself. They were judged on runway, I think. I also think that I know way too much about Manhunt 2005 to stand tall and proud.
Neha, alright, then it seems we are in agreement actually. I took your “I disagree” as disagreeing with my summary of Vaishnavism which was intended to contradict Abhi’s statement that Hinduism does not have a Personal God. You are instead merely disagreeing with my philosophy, but not with either my summary of that philosophy or my insistence that it exists and is significant. That’s cool.
Purva Mimamsa exegetical principles Whoa, Kumar, please tell me what that is? It sounds fascinating. My email is Saheli . . .at. . .DOT. ..Gmail. . .dot. . .com.
I think Nina just wanted to point out that we’re not alone in being mocked.
I think it’s tragic how the magazine has pasted someone else’s head on Ennis’ body.
Manish, considering that you only just posted this, I must assume that sometime between your last comment and this comment you actually saw Ennis’s body. If so, I must demand a separate post detailing such a historical Sepia Mutiny meetup.
I can’t believe I’m silmutaneously talking about the evolution of religion and “manhunts” silmutaneously.
Anyways, Neha, give Pawan my regards; I don’t doubt many ladies will be willing to give him a consolation prize, eh? lol – j/k. I too, now know TOO much about Manhunt 2005, thanks to your besharam influence.
Now, in all seriousness, Razib, that book sounds fantastic and a good complement to books I have already read. Thanks!
Don’t worry. I am pretty good at discerning what is beneficial and what isn’t, once I’ve read it – I’ve read plenty of crap and have come out alive (i.e. I’m not that impressionable).
So, reading up on this book won’t kill me and I still plan on looking it up. The library is free and allows for plenty of experimentation.
Thanks for your suggestions as to what to read (parabola), as well!
Bon nuit!
My statement wasn’t meant to be all that definitive. All I said was that “old school Hinduism” doesn’t believe in a personal God. Which came first Vaishnavism or the type I am refering to? I am a Deist that doesn’t believe in religion but I do like to keep my facts straight so thank you for the background.
My own beliefs include a combination of principles from Sufism which believes in the total love of God as if “he” was a person, and old-school Hinduism (the kind that rejects a personal God).
By the way, I think Karen Armstrong’s book “A History of God” should be required reading.
Whoa there, cowboy. You’ve read a heck of a lot into two words and a link. Saheli has a likelier explanation – you’re not alone in being mocked. But really, I just wanted to show y’all a picture of Jesus on a thong, since whenever someone silkscreens a Hindu icon on an inappropriate item someone always cries, “you’d never see JESUS there!!!” Which, as several posters have since explained, is sort of beside the point.
I think Razib hits the nail on the head (plus I’d never heard of Carvaka – bonus!)
This is probably true. It is embarrassing. I’d like to deny it but I’ve seen it myself.
Like Razib, I think all religions should be ridiculed equally. But as Manish implied, clueful satire is satisfying while clueless appropriation is just embarrassing or offensive. Much as I’d like to believe Laxmi on a thong humorously expresses the wearer’s desire to attract luck and wealth to his nether regions, I know it’s really just a design blunder betraying ignorance and cultural insensitivity.
Any believer ought to be enraged at this!!Lackadaisical attitudes only acquiesce cultural degradation.
Abhi:
“…All I said was that “old school Hinduism” doesn’t believe in a personal God. Which came first Vaishnavism or the type I am refering to?”
Well, neither. But if you insist on an answer, strictly speaking, I’d say the theist/personalist versions came first. Both the Svetasvatara Upanisad (Saiva)and the Bhagavad-Gita (Vaisnava) predate the classical Advaita of Acharya Sankara.
Also, recall that all of the classical Hindu acharyas (whether Advaitin, Vishistadvaitin, or Dvaitin etc.) wrote commentaries on the Bhagavad-Gita. And the latter, arguably, is very ‘personalist’. Btw, I am not taking a position–at least not in this comment–on the validity of Sanakarcharya’s strenuous efforts to argue for a non-dual interpretation of the BG.
Kumar
“Like Razib, I think all religions should be ridiculed equally.”
I am also an equal opportunity believer. Also, one has to remember, that art and culture (even pop and purely commerical) should left for most part ungoverned. Only in the rarest of rare circumstances, one should call “time out”.
If do not give art, science, and culture give free rein, they will never progress, like science. Apriori, we can never tell which one is a “junk” or “ignorant/clueless” or “insightful” or a “timeless” expression.
Have you ever complained about “idiotic/ ignorant” African dances in infinite number of Bollywood movies?
If you are sensitive, then be an equal opportunity sensitive person.
“chalo, jaane do bhi yaaron”
would roughly translate to
Come on, let it go, friend.
Nina P:
“..two words and a link…” isn’t all that you were peddling I think. In context, your comment does read as an attempt to suggest Hindus are rather less laid-back compared to Christians: After all, you were responding to an earlier comment suggesting that Christians would also be aggrieved if similarly insulted. By linking to thong-Jesus without acknowledging that Serrano et al. aggrieved many Christians you were, rather artfully, dismissing the possibility of such aggrieved Christians altogether.
Btw, the ‘weirdness’ with which Hinduism is regarded by some is not news to most Hindus who’ve grown up in this country. I don’t tremble in fear at the thought that some find my practices laughable. I am irritated however by those who react in horror if some are annoyed by random insults hurled their way. So long as the response to such insults is expressed in a reasonable, lawful manner (i.e., no threats of violence etc., expressed or implied) I think there’s nothing wrong with it.
About the “…cowboy…”
Umm, well, I’m actually an Indian. But, hey, I know that’s just “…clueful satire…”, so I’m chuckling as I type this.
Kumar
I don’t view any religion to be tolerant of this kind of abuse of their symbols. Islamists, as we all know, will deal with it brutally, especially in the prevailing political context. Christians may tolerate it a little bit more, courtesy to more free societies and the relative prosperity that are present in christian dominated countries. Hindus too do not stand this kind of treatment of their symbols and indians are well aware of it. I can’t recall any cases like this in indian magazines and so on. Even a movie that depicted lesbianism (it was suppsed against the indian culture) little bit was dealt with brutally. As I recall reading somewhere that the first book to ban in independent india was a book that supposedly offended hindus. This is barring all the other protests and violence that follws such incidents. In short, I don’t think these things happen because hindus tolerate it. Like others said, it is a culture that most westerners cannot associate themselves with, which becomes easy prey for such abuse.
Razib,
That was very nicely put. When discussing these things with my brother we noticed the idolatrous nature of Chistianity as compared to Islam. Islam uses the least amount of symbols.
But then, Tell this to Lt. General William Jerry Boykin 🙂 Who said the following :
From the article: ” In another speech he recounted the time he chased down a Muslim Somali warlord who was bragging that the Americans would not capture him because Allah would protect him. “My God is bigger than his God. I knew my God was a real God, and his was an idol,” Boykin said.”
If this is the view of a General, imagine what a sepoy must be thinking. Scary !!!
Good lord, I’d never suggest that. It’s patently untrue. Do you read the news in this country? Fundie Xtians are constantly going off about every little thing. They claim teaching evolution in science classes is a form of oppression.
Fundies/religionists of any stripe are unbearably obnoxious at best, and fatally dangerous at worst. The US is rife with fundie Xtian terrorists who murder doctors and bomb gay bars, although the US press won’t call them “terrorists”. If anything, American Hindus tend to be a little less uptight than their monotheistic counterparts, but when Hindus go fundie they’re as dangerous as anyone.
Fortunately, most believers are not fundamentalists. Religion can be a beautiful thing, but it goes ugly with disappointing frequency.
Quick sidebar — It’s interesting how there’s nothing like this here in the UK, at least not on this scale. Two nations who otherwise have so much in common, but not this — the majority indigenous population here is far, far less religious than the US.
I remember reading/seeing quite a lot of reports during the most recent American election that “the North-Eastern seaboard and California aren’t necessarily representative of the culture/attitudes of the rest of the US.”
My statement wasn’t meant to be all that definitive. All I said was that “old school Hinduism” doesn’t believe in a personal God.
Abhi That’s cool. I’ll take “old-schoo” to refer to a certain brand of Advaita philosophy. I was taking issue with this comment, “Real Hindusim isn’t polytheistic. It is monotheistic. It also doesn’t believe in a personal “God” like Arbrahamic religions but in a Universal Soul (except for Hare Krsnas)” but I see we’re all cleared up. Fabulous, that’s what a discussion is for.
As to your question for what’s truly older, I’ll say I don’t know and I don’t think you really can know. Even in the Gita and the Puranas a constant back and forth discussion and tension is alluded to. Whichever was dominant at the oldest time our historical record starts to get hopelessly fuzzy (and I think it gets hopelessly fuzzy not too long ago) stands to make the best case for itself as oldest. Personally, I don’t really care what’s “oldest” because any kind of historical narrative is only the tiniest piece of religion to me anyway.
Kumar I’ve got to say that I think this, “In context, your comment does read as an attempt to suggest Hindus are rather less laid-back compared to Christians” is a bit harsh. I think it behooves us to take comments on their face, especially if clarified as Nina has done.
I just wanted to point out that Christians do put Jesus on a lot of wacky stuff themselves. Encased Jesus is my favorite example. It’s true that some of these are the work of ironic irreverent unChristian hipsters, but if you hang out in small town antique stores and with a certain breed of small-town church going craft happy lady, you’ll be surprised at how many of them are made by true believers. Devout Hindus have their own version of this kind of kitsch but I think on the whole it’s slightly more reverent, exactly b/c of the fundamental theological difference in the role of the icon.
Yep I agree. Except for the last sentence but that’s just a personal preference. I am more fascinated by the historical context of religion than of religion itself. This has been a good discussion. Better than the magazine cover that actually started it 🙂
Oh Saheli, you’ve introduced me to another time sink. Now I have to look at every one of those Jesus kitsch items. Like this sincere crime against taste.
Nina P.:
As someone brought-up in this country, and now as a (would-be) biologist, I am quite aware of right-wing Christians. Especially as a biologist, I run into disconcertingly many who take their scripture as science. That said, I have no problem in acknowleding that you are equally aware of this Christian faction. However, unlike Saheli, I think that my initial reading of your comment was a reasonable one–mistaken as it turns out, but nonetheless a reasonable one, in context.
Kumar