Pay attention…this is very important, Satveer. Have you noticed Jesus for yourself…at some moment in time, yet???
That is the advice offered to newly re-elected Minnesota state senator Satveer Chaudhary by his defeated opponent, Rae Hart Anderson, in the concession e-mail she sent him in lieu of the customary phone call. (Thanks, tipster “pardesi”!)
Minneapolis-St. Paul TV station WCCO helpfully provides verbatim text of the e-mail. A true light for Christ, Ms. Anderson proffers an odd form of congratulations before giving our heathen brother some news he can use:
I’ve enjoyed much of this race, especially the people I’ve met…even you! I see your deficits–not all of them, and your potential–but not all of it. Only your Creator knows the real potential He’s put in you. Get to know Him and know yourself…you’ll be more interesting even to you!
The race of your life is more important than this one–and it is my sincere wish that you’ll get to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He died for the sins of the world, yours and mine–and especially for those who accept His forgiveness.
The message continues in this vein, with quotes from Scripture, before ending as follows:
There’s nothing like belonging to Christ…not winning, not money, not degrees…it’s the best.
Good wishes and better wishes…until you wish for the best!
“To get a sermon is definitely a surprise,” Chaudhary told WCCO. (Perhaps he should write back: “Tat tvam asi, Rae!”) Incidentally, Chaudhary’s state senate district overlaps with the US Congress district of Keith Ellison, the nation’s first Muslim congressman, who was asked this gem of a question a couple of days ago on CNN Headline News. It seems that in Minnesota, much of the Lord’s work remains shamefully undone.
you have to be born a Hindu and converting is not allowed or accepted
one form of hinduism (most hindus around here are white converts to the krishnas).
this is america. or at least parts of it. no big surprise, evangelicals ‘witness’ to everyone who isn’t evangelical. i’ve had catholic friends encouraged to convert to ‘christianity’ in mississipi.
btw, this is fundamentally about different boundaries. myself, i have no problem with evangelicals witnessing to me once. but if i keep an acquaintance or friendship with them i tell them that i don’t like my time being wasted and i’ll give them just one shot so their conscious is salved. if they persist, i simply tell them what i think of their delusion and they don’t usually bring it up again. the american radical protestant zeitgeist is strange. most european christians, muslims, hindus, jews, etc. are not comfortable with it. but it isn’t like we can ignore 1/3 of the population or pass non-proslyetization laws. so simply develop interpersonal strategies. if you are a public person like satveer not interacting with these sorts is not an option.
Uh…this American Orthodox Christian is very uncomfortable with it.
this American Orthodox Christian is very uncomfortable with it
good point. i think there are regional differences within america about this sort of thing. g.w. bush’s dad grew up episcopalian in connecticut and never really grokked evangelicals because it seemd weird to talk about personal faith. g.w. bush grew up in part in texas and he’s mastered their lingo.
Echoing nik (39), Lokayata philosophy is considered to be a part of hinduism, but is also atheistic. Popular hinduism is based mostly on practice. I have been an atheist–perhaps the correct term is teapot agnostic– most of my life, but I have also been always considered Hindu (no contradiction there, unlike in monotheistic faiths). Like nik said, life is far too short to be spent arguing about the relative superiority of fairy tales.
Not necessarily. Judaism, the original Abrahamic faith, does not require evangelizing. It actually provides for a different way for non-Jews to be “good people”, by following a different set of rules. I’m not saying it’s not elitist to consider yourself God’s chosen people, but they don’t generally believe that others are doomed to hell or even think that they need to follow the same rules for living a good life.
As a Hindu, I think I have a fairly good grasp of the theological subtleties of my religion. I, like others who have pointed this out, don’t feel like getting in a theological argument with people who want to convert me. I’m polite to them because some of them actually believe they are doing me a favor (Mormons are a case in point) and are not trying to act superior. I do think though that a not conceding an election loss is a highly inappropriate place to proselytize.
I’m certainly no expert on the matter, but my understanding is that there is a minority of Hindus that don’t accept converts. From what I recall, these are mostly orthodox Brahmins, so my interpretation is that they are averse to conversion because it upsets the social order.
Of course, given Hinduism’s plural beliefs, there is no one way to convert and there is no one authority on who may or may not convert. Some organisations do have programmes to help people interested in converting, but very few, if any, actively try to pursue converts or evangelise.
My experience has been that most Hindus will welcome converts, though some may do so with a bit of curiousity. Of course, it’s not always easy, given the cultural and linguistic barriers. Nonetheless, converts can become involved, respected, and influential within a local community (I can think of at least one example near where I live).
I suppose one caveat is that my experiences come from living outside India. Outside of India, most Hindus are a minority and need to assimilate into the local society. As such, given as they are
outsiders' most of the time, they may be more accepting ofoutsiders’ trying to blend into their own niche.Manju —
What about the entire, overall context of conceding defeat in an email like that? What would your reaction be if a Democrat conceded with an equal and opposite email (perhaps, for example, by expressing some condescending disdain for the more conservative candidate’s religious views or lifestyle in some way)? I’m not entirely sure that I would regard it all that favorably, even if I agreed with its contents even to some minimal extent.
Not necessarily. Judaism, the original Abrahamic faith, does not require evangelizing. It actually provides for a different way for non-Jews to be “good people”, by following a different set of rules. I’m not saying it’s not elitist to consider yourself God’s chosen people, but they don’t generally believe that others are doomed to hell or even think that they need to follow the same rules for living a good life.
many christian denominations hold to this view. even the catholic church has generally come around to the view that salvation is possible outside of the church, though it may be more difficult or less certain (generally the “out” is that one may be a christian without knowing one is a christian or something like that, since no one can really know for sure except god about such things). most mainline and liberal churches have also stopped active evangelization.
even the catholic church has generally come around to the view that salvation is possible outside of the church, though it may be more difficult or less certain (generally the “out” is that one may be a christian without knowing one is a christian or something like that, since no one can really know for sure except god about such things). most mainline and liberal churches have also stopped active evangelization.
Most of the old mainline protestant churches – e.g., Episcopalians, are really not all that different from liberal Hinduism. Even Methodists have come around to this view. They sell the Bhagavad Gita at the bookstore at St. Bart’s in Manhattan. UU Churches celebrate Diwali And they are all dying.
Whats the big deal? She just politely asked him a question. there was no force involved, no threat of riots or pogroms. Which is more than what can be said about the Shiv Sena, RSS, Bajrang Dal , Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other such representatives of the most ‘tolerant’ Hindu religion. Christians are facing overt, physical intimidation across vast swathes of India and here you have Hindus crowing about tolerance. I know first hand accounts of systematic, official (police/ govt) backed persecution in Orissa, Bihar, MP, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. I have a Dalit friend who is a Christian by belief, but did not convert ‘officially’ becuase he will lose reservation benefits. Sometimes, its good to keep things in perspective. Being a minority in non Christian majority country is rarely pleasant.
That does not justify treating religious minorities in this country badly. That’s like saying, “Jews and Christians are persecuted in Muslim countries; therefore, Muslims in America have no right to complain if they’re detained, interned, or shipped off to Guantanamo.”
Thanks for the info guys. You know, when I lived with a desi family, I didn’t really see Hinduism as that much different from my catholic,latino sensibility.
The Cuban and Boriquenno side of my family practice a catholic/west african syncretism not too different than Hinduism. I never felt like they were at odds.
This is the worst form of bigotry, IMO. Wrapped in all the soul saving talk.
Bidi (#37), it doesn’t matter whether those trying to sermonise you are “better” on the social ladder than you are. It is disrespectful of the other, plain and simple.
Thank God Satveer Choudhury isn’t an atheist!
Desishiksa, Razib, Desitude, Thanks for pointing out, I stand corrected re: Judaism. But what you say about some christian denominations, is that their official position? That it is ok to not evangelize? My understanding has been that its part of the faith. I KNOW this especially about Catholics, from a father at my missionary school, that to tell others about their lord and savior is a duty of every catholic. Razib your note about the ‘out’ doesn’t really state a more permissive or potentially pluralistic position by the Catholic Church.
IC, Most of the current rhetoric from all the organizations you cite didn’t exist before active even aggressive proselytization efforts by various christian denominations in Indian backwaters. Not condoning their methods. But their behavior is a crude way to shore up defenses against what not only they but most Hindus see as poaching. BTW, most Hindus do not support them, else you’d have seen landslide victory for the BJP or more militant orgs across India.
I don’t see how your Dalit friend fits into this discussion. He’s basically playing both sides of the fence, and lacks enough conviction to join all other ‘un-reserved’ so-called upper castes by claiming his faith and losing the reservation. (so-called because in today’s India they are turning into the untouchables. If you are poor, and you’re ‘un-reserved’ you’re basically screwed and are defaulted to a life of poverty. This includes not just brahmins who seem to be despised these days as desi Nazis, but others like kshatriyas and vaishs).
At any rate, the big deal is that the email was highly inappropriate and off-topic. And she lacked civility and politeness also, otherwise she’d have simply made a phone call and stayed on topic.
But what you say about some christian denominations, is that their official position? That it is ok to not evangelize?
yes. that is what my friends who are congregationalist (united church of christ) were taught in sunday school at least. many of the more liberal mainline churches don’t exactly have a fixed catechism 🙂
Razib your note about the ‘out’ doesn’t really state a more permissive or potentially pluralistic position by the Catholic Church.
if you say so.
there are over 1 billion catholics. there is a lot of diversity in there. after vatican II i am pretty sure it is official church policy that salvation is possible outside of the church (read this).
religions evolve. that is there nature. to say that evangelization is fundamental to x is always debatable. some hindus say it is impossible to convert, while other hindus go out and preach to the world. some christians believe it is their mission to witness to the world, while others now believe that god speaks to all people through the various traditions. the emphases within local religious traditions might differ, but the reality of variation is undeniable. operationally we may speak of generalities in regards to religion, but i think it is important to keep in mind taht fundamentally religion is shaped by the believers.
religions evolve. that is there nature. to say that evangelization is fundamental to x is always debatable. some hindus say it is impossible to convert, while other hindus go out and preach to the world. some christians believe it is their mission to witness to the world, while others now believe that god speaks to all people through the various traditions. the emphases within local religious traditions might differ, but the reality of variation is undeniable.
Absolutely! What I was saying before about my grandma’s African/Catholic syncretism is a prime example of religion evolving. I’ve even seen pictures of Shiva and Krishna on some catholic latino/catholic Haitian home altars.
My personal favorite is my grandma’s altar with the statues of Yemoja (the black, Cubana virgin) next to a crucifix attached with dried roses and coins to a 3 foot high poster of Derek Jeter. Gotta love it!
to me the most amusing religious story, when vasco da gama reached kerala he was on the way to meet to the king, but when he saw some brahmins he rushed over to doff his hat, as he assumed they were christian priests from their appearance and he wanted to pay his respects.
Wait, so Catholics AREN’T going to Hell? Whew. That’s a relief.
pied piper:
you’re right, she’s being impolite and impolitic. i didn’t think of that but i don’t think the objections to what she wrote revovles around her lack of grace. it’s that she had the audacity to talk religion in the public sphere. If she asked her opponent to embrace some of her political ideas i’m sure it would raise a few eyebrows, but would not get quite this reponse. i think religion should be debated more, especially since more and more any criticism of religion is being labled bigotry…and religion is becoming increasingly racialized.
btw, i don’t mind a little imploliteness, i always like nixons’s “you won’t have richard nixon to kick around anymore” line after he lost the california governers race sometime in the mid-60’s.
Now that’s authentic! Nuff respect to Abuela Diesel!
my old colllege housemate, a southern protestant, thought dead babies go to hell b/c they haven’t embraced jesus yet.
Seeker:
My point is to point out the irony that so many Hindus here whine and complain about the slightest perceived insults but a chose to condone violent acts of rape/murder and physical intimidation conducted in the name of defending ‘Hinduism’. ItÂ’s all OK if it is in defense of the faith right. Of course, before the missionaries showed up, those people whose souls we are fighting over were outcastes, fair game for the worst form of societal institutionalized discrimination in human history.
All religions have their faults. I responded with some indignation in my previous comments after reading some of the nauseatingly self congratulatory comments here where Hindus claim the moral high ground by pointing out how ‘tolerant’ the religion is on matters of doctrine. This may be true, but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.
You are being disingenuous here my friend. If you grew up in India, you know that a Dalit still faces discrimination in a Hindu dominated society, no matter what his religion. Converting to Christianity or Buddhism hardly changes his plight economically. He still needs reservations in education and jobs. Conversion is an act of defiance, symbolically rejecting a religion that justifies institutional discrimination based on birth. It hardly helps a Dalit economically, in fact he is worse off as he is cut off from all reservation.
This may be true, but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.
I guess you are forgetting the entire history of slavery in Americas, and Africa, and its close link/ relationship to organized Christianity. Wait a minute, the entire colonization of South America. Remember, Afican American slaves were also Christians. How about 1000s of years of Christianity-Judiasm hate on each other.
Do you know the history of Irish conflict? Or Serbia.
Disclaimer: By no means, I am putting Hinduism or any religion on a moral high ground or demeaning them but we need to be fair/ rigorous in a scholarly discourse. Please note that. Sometimes, it is better off to be careful about being factual or just not make bombastic statements. You would have been better off just calling those commenters on their incomplete analysis (or ignornance) rather using words like “MOST repressive” without much thought.
I am very skeptical about the claims of “Hinduism being open to plural opinions.” I think people are blurring the lines between what constitutes a “religion” and what constitutes a “civilization.” I don’t agree that “Hinduism” is a religion the same way we categorize “Islam” or “Christianity” as a religion. I think when most people say “Hinduism” they mean the “various religious cults/beleifs that have developed in the sub-continent over centuries.” To take this historical fact and lazily label it “Hinduism” and present it as a “unified whole” is a bit misleading. For example, the evolution of Buddhism although somewhat rooted in Sanatana Dharma, posed a threat religiously and politically to the caste based Hindu system and had to be “Brahmanised” to be accepted again.
I think we also have to consider the contemporary context as well. This “plurality” claim seems to be another example of what some Hindu intellectuals put forth as a “definitive statement” as a sort of “modern apologetic” (I hate this term but can’t think of anything better)In the 1800s, many Hindu intellectuals wanted to argue that “Hinduism” was “monotheistic in essence.” Now it seems like “plurality” has been the buzzword given the rise of postmodernist critiques of grand narratives in academia. Like I said, that there are various truth claims within the sub-continent of India and that many of them share themes and deities is not questioned by me, but that all these conflicting views form one “religion” is I think not accurate. All these varying views constitute one “civilization” is more accurate. Just because the breadth of religio/philosophical thinking is diverse across a geographic space, doesn’t mean they can be all grouped together and presented as one with no problems.
Also, as somebody pointed out Judaism does not proselytise either. However, that lack of proseltyisation doesnt reveal some sort of “inherent liberalism” but really a sense of “elitism.” Hinduism is tied up with a specific region of the world, namely India and the people who have spread it from India. That many Hindus have a “racialist” view of themselves with non-Hindus is known and well documented. It makes sense that the far right Hindutva is into race theory and genetic arguments and look up to Hitler.That their language about Muslims and Christians revolve around “purity/impurity.” They are just an extreme variation on the racial elitism that has its place in Hindu civilization.
Hmmm, so one could argue that the reservation policies serve to keep dalits within the hindu fold. Let all the brahmins whining about reservations ponder over that.
If dalits ever converted en masse to christianity and buddhism their oppression in India would become a case of religious persecution, instead of an internal matter in a hopelessly backward society. That certainly would draw widespread international condemnation of hindus I wager.
No doubt about that. Hinduism is tolerant, perhaps too tolerant, of modes of worship of divinity (think of the aghori cannibals, the child-sacrificing kali worshippers and so on); but its caste system is brutal.
IC:
I agree with you. Though nominally a hindu I too am often irritated by the self-congratulatory tone of many hindus in the comment threads here.
Here I have to disagree with you. Can’t see you that this is not a perceived insult and sending anyone such unwelcome and shamelessly proselytizing emails is wrong?
And no one here is condoning violent acts committed in the name of defending hinduism. But at the same time remember that this violence is a very recent development in hinduism, and not part of its culture. The christian minority in India has lived and flourished in India for many centuries. The violence you mention started only in the 1980s with the rise of ‘hindutva’.
As Kush mentioned above, every religion has done its share of repression. Lets not even go there. But yes, as any Indian should be, I am deeply ashamed of the caste system and the havoc it wreaked for so many generations.
Its always amusing to watch dark-skinned desis subscribing to euro-centric racial theories. Sadly amusing actually.
As for christians evangelizing, I always welcome that opportunity to try to free them from their misguided cult. So should you all. Just ask them a few simple, pointed questions and then watch them squirm:
Why does your God need blood sacrifice? (This primitive, utterly indefensible belief is the very foundation of christianity.)
Why will your God torture for all eternity good, virtuous men like Gandhi, Zoroaster, Confucius, the Greek Philosophers and billions of others? A true, good and loving God would never punish virtuous men would he? (This argument can also be used against muslims, because they subscribe to the same insane belief)
Why did Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount if he was only meant to be a blood sacrifice? Either he was a Teacher or a sacrificial scapegoat for your sins; he cant be both can he?
How can the blood of an innocent victim atone for your sins? Isnt that absurd?
Why is the Sermon on the Mount so similar to the buddhist Dhammapada? (Christianity as we know it is actually a Pauline perversion and has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, which are actually similar to the teachings of Buddha and advaita vedanta).
Why are you foolishly awaiting an external Kingdom of God when Jesus himself taught that the Kingdom of God is within you?
And so on….
Welcome debate, because none of the abrahamic faiths can withstand rational, or even moral, scrutiny.
let’s not resort to the same tactics that we are appalled by in this story. state senator chaudhary has responded in a very civil manner, and this will only reflect well on him. jumping on “inconsistencies” in another’s religion is not what chaudary would want his supporters to do.
That their language about Muslims and Christians revolve around “purity/impurity.”
muslims and christians have their own conceptions (or in the case of christians in the west, had) of purity and impurity. it is simply more explicitly religious rather than racial.
e.g., q: is it permissible to take food from idolaters?
Sadly amusing actually.
aren’t you “offended and insulted even”? perhaps you should educate yourself!
ItÂ’s all OK if it is in defense of the faith right. Of course, before the missionaries showed up, those people whose souls we are fighting over were outcastes, fair game for the worst form of societal institutionalized discrimination in human history.
Christianity in India is rife with the most vicious caste discrimination. I would argue that the principal reason it has not done particularly well in India (despite the tall claims) is precisely because Dalits see the hypocrisy for what it is. Its interesting how quickly an Indian Christian like IC decides that we, American Hindus, are really the enemy, and should bear the sins of our forefathers? South Asianism, anyone? 🙂
[Wiki]
This may be true, but Hinduism is the MOST repressive religion socially.
LOL. If this is not a trollish statement, I don’t know what is 🙂 Some people think Christianity is the greatest abomination the world has known – Voltaire, Nietzche, many Enlightenment thinkers and philosophes and more recently Peter Watson, author of the magisterial Ideas:
yes. that is what my friends who are congregationalist (united church of christ) were taught in sunday school at least. many of the more liberal mainline churches don’t exactly have a fixed catechism 🙂
This is true. A methodist minister friend helped us a few years ago protest the raging insurgency fomented by Baptist ultras in the Northeast of India. He thought some of their activities were unconscionable. I asked him whether he thought I could be saved – he said yes, pick any one Hindu God and worship him/her with devotion, and lead an ethical life, and you too will enjoy heaven. I clicked my heals, doffed my hat, and wished a good day to him.
“To get a sermon is definitely a surprise,” Chaudhary told WCCO. (Perhaps he should write back:
I have been reading Emerson in my Hindu study circle of late. The great sage of Concord (Harold Bloom says Emerson is to America what Dr. Johnson is to England and Goethe is to Germany–the national sage)
In this point of view we become very sensible of the first defect of historical Christianity. Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion. As it appears to us, and as it has appeared for ages, it is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal, the positive, the ritual. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus. The soul knows no persons. It invites every man to expand to the full circle of the universe, and will have no preferences but those of spontaneous love. Did someone say tat tvam asi?
Incidentally, I think the Emersonian strain informs what is best in the American spiritual sensibility, and is still the great foil to Global Evangelism, Incorporated.
Ghazali:
Yes, hinduism is perhaps better described as a civilization than as a religion. What difference does it make? The point is that hundreds of conflicting beliefs could exist in such close proximity with so little conflict. Remember that both christianity and islam fought endlessly over two.
Bingo!
5. has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, which are actually similar to the teachings of Buddha and advaita vedanta).
From a scholarly perspective, its not at all clear that Jesus actually existed. The whole of Jesus’s “history” is based on a few tenuous corroborating statements. In my opinion he is a composite figure, with obvious inputs from the Greek mystery religions. There are several mainstream scholars who subscribe to the “No Jesus” school of thought – Robert M. Price is one of them. The problem is that the acadedmy is littered with sentimentalist ex-Christians like most of the characters at the Jesus Seminar who need, probably for deeply held psychological reasons, to assert that he existed, though they obviously deny any claims to his “divinity.”
Speaking as an Indian christian (Syro-Malabar), i don’t think i’ve ever noticed any sort of disrimination, overt or otherwise.
Regarding Ms Anderson’s comments, they’re patronising, though (and this is the sad part) perhaps well-meant, and I’d ignore it. I’d find it rude, simply because I think religion is a private matter, and so I’d resent other people’s intrusion on a private part of my life.
That being said – I’d agree with CS that it’s not really that big a deal – a low-level annoyance, but one that’s to be shrugged off and ignored.
risible, but we’ll get into semantic disputes here. for many christians a historical jesus without the divinity is not jesus. personally, i find in quite plausible that a reformist rabbi in the mode of hillel existed in early 1st century palestine around whom a cult following developed and who became transformed into jesus.
Religious faith in general does not withstand rational scrutiny. People are not entirely rational beings, and religious faith, like falling in love, fills an emotional need. I don’t think Hinduism withstands scrutiny any better than any other religion. I persist in believing in god despite a lack of any substantive proof of the existence of a divinity. I don’t think there is anything to be gained from having a supposed rational argument about someone’s religious faith–they believe because they do. When people proselytize, I believe I have the moral high ground when I ignore them or politely ask them to stop, not when I try to talk them out of their faith believing that mine is more “rational”.
LOL.. I just watched this video of Zakir Naik.. (a famouls Muslim preacher from Mumbai, India).. It is funny.. Zakir naik on mathematics.. It echoes your statement.. Basically he claims that Saudi arabia preventing non-Muslim worship is right when compared to non-Muslim countries allowing Muslim worship..
Manju —
Well, my objections do — I actually view these as interrelated and rather difficult to separate. (And I think that “lack of grace” is putting it too mildly.) Even if it’s appropriate in the abstract to discuss religion in the public sphere, there’s something that definitely isn’t appropriate about what she is doing so here. A private, condescending email in lieu of a private concession phone call is hardly a discussion of religion “in the public sphere.” And “appropriateness” aside, the fact that she has the audacity to act — rather comfortably — in a way that is “impolite and impolitic,” to use your words, says something about her respect for religious traditions other than her own, and perhaps about the place of non-Judeo-Christian traditions in American society more generally. (And as I suggested, my words would be a bit stronger than “impolite and impolitic” — her email seems to be more about status and social equality than about etiquette.)
I might very well agree with some of where you are coming from at the most general and abstract levels about discussions of religion in the public sphere, but that’s not what’s going on here. Might your eagerness to be making those general points perhaps be pushing you to be a bit too charitable to Anderson herself? That’s a genuine question for you, not a rhetorical one.
Her email was in fact a thinly veiled attempt to minimize and belittle her opponent’s win by acting as if there was a larger purpose to life in which the election was insignificant and that he was missing the whole point, which is just plain obnoxious regardless of your religious beliefs or whether you think it’s okay to proselytize.
A hindu is not required to go to temple or worship images of god . It is only one of the way (Bhakti Yoga) .You may not even believe in God(as defined by Abrahamic religion) and still be Hindu .A person may be a Hindu but still doesnÂ’t believe in God; a person may believe in God, but still not a Hindu and a person may a Hindu and believe in God.At the same time Hinduism is not synonymous with atheism either. If the Abrahamic criterion of belief in a God is used, then many of the popular Hindu personalities like Adi Sankaracharya, Dayananda Saraswati, Vivekananda, Ramana maharshi wont fit that criteria.
Yes this is true .Most Hindus dont know philosophical ideas of hinduism .But they are not required to know this .Thats why there are different ways of getting liberation in Hinduism . Hinduism reognizes that different people need different way .Only a person who is following Jnana Yoga is required to know about philosphy .
No you dont need to be born hindu . Arya Samajh convert persons of other religion into hinduism .But you are not required to do even that . You dont need to follow any scriptures even (as they only act as quidelines) .
It is very complex to define a Hindu . A true Hindu is that person, who endeavours to know that knowing which everything becomes known!
Ponniyin Selvan Dont talk about prof Zakir Naik . he has found prophecy about prophet Mohammad (PBUH) even in Bhavisya puran . He also know about allah upnishad which we hindus dont know about . Shame on all hindus 😉
sakshi: Well, it does make a difference because it is not true, at least not in the way you’re describing it.
By the way, I’m not here to denigrate Indian religious beleifs. I have been trying to increase my knowledge of them from as far back as I remember. I am simply against some claims that I don’t think reflect reality to an extent such as the “plurality” one.
Pied Piper:
You’re probably right. i oppose her worldview but I do find her to be genuine, refreshing, and consistent. She’s taken her beliefs to their rational conclusion and doesn’t blabber abount non-sensical things like “religious tolerance” that no true religious person can consistently believe if they take their religion seriously.
She’s not machialvellian about her religion like most politicians, like the clintons, who follow machialvelli’s dictum that the prince must appear to be religious in order to win the goodwill of the people. i also applaud her de-racialization of religion that her and her contemporary evangelicals practice by trying to convert people of other ethnicities/cultures/race. this puts religion on an equal footing with other philosophies, which is a good thing.
religion has been put behind a protective wall and judging someones religion has become the equivilent of judging the color of someones’s skin. at least she dared to judge. she represents the true face of religion, not the watered down version that has allowed it to continue in the modern world.
Yes, there were ascetics in Christianity and Islam but it wasn’t built into the system much as it was in Indian religous thought.
christianity is arguably more like hinduism than islam in regards to ascetism. if you are going to lecture people on not understanding their religions you should have more sensitivity for variation within the abrahamic tradition. until the reformation large monastic communities were the norm throughout western christendom, sexual purity and ascetism were virtues, and the prayers of these holy people resulted in salvation for the whole community which was steeped in worldly sins. many christians traditionally abstained from pleasures or indulgences during particular periods for religious reasons (e.g., lent, which was much more intensive in the pre-modern era). in roman catholicism there is still a strong ascetic streak, as evidenced by the members of opus dei who engage in various self-mortifications. and what is ramadan if not an expression of asceticism within islam? though i take your point that asceticism is deemphasized in islam, and unlike christianity, buddhism and hinduism celibate religious devotees are not commonplace in the islamic tradition.
(there is some thought that monasticism and what not in the christian tradition might derive from an importation of indian cultural motifs and values to the west during the hellenistic period)
risible:
If you guys are so confident that no Dalit or tribal will convert from Hinduism to any other religion, why pass so many of anti-conversion laws, which is a violation of people’s fundamental rigths?Why arrange elaborate ghar-vapasi programs. Why have VHP, Bajrang Dal etc terorroize a defenceless minority? This is militant fundamentalism , nothing else. Most of you know that the caste system is rotten to the core and are so insecure about your religion that sanctions it that you have to force and terorrize people not to convert.
No, American Hindus are not my enemy. Actually, they form the vast majority of my friends in this country . I only consider fundamentalist, Hindutva spouting losers like you the enemy. You guys are the ones wrecking India, by trying to turn it into a Hindu Pakistan. Hindu is not synonymous with Indian, I belive your values are contrary to our secular republic. I don’t need any ceritificate from people like you, I am no South Asian-ist, but I am a proud and patriotic Indian.
christianity is arguably more like hinduism than islam in regards to ascetism. if you are going to lecture people on not understanding their religions you should have more sensitivity for variation within the abrahamic tradition.
The Roman Catholic faith dictates that all sexual conduct must be within a man/woman marriage. Touching oneself is also haram, uh, I mean forbidden. One is supposed to be celibate (pure) until marriage. Marriage is only dissolved by the chrch. Some churches also say that secular divorce, (unsanctioned by the church anullment) should effectually make you a celibate, as does being widowed. This is what we were tought in Catholic school in NJ 20 years ago. Sounds an awful lot like ascetism to me. I never bought it though, even back then…;)
LOL.. I just watched this video of Zakir Naik.. (a famouls Muslim preacher from Mumbai, India).. It is funny.. Zakir naik on mathematics.. It echoes your statement.. Basically he claims that Saudi arabia preventing non-Muslim worship is right when compared to non-Muslim countries allowing Muslim worship.
Ponniyin Selvan: I dont think the clip is funny. I was actually infuritated by the clip. Here we have this spindly Indian Muslim man from Bombay preaching supremacist nonsense on TV. Has he forgotten the terrible sectarian violence which engulfed Bombay in the early nineties? Its insane for an Indian Muslim to defend the fact that Saudi Arabia does not allow for Churches, Synagogues to I am sure he wont be happy if India prohibits the construction of new masjids. What a hypocrite! Btw I dont know if you speak Urdu, but this dude’s Urdu diction has jarred my Urdu sensibilities like no one can. His accent is beyond ridiculous. I really worry about the future of Indian Muslims. Oh well! Allāhu A`alam.
This mas is more vile than I thought. Here is another video of this fool advocating/condoning the death of apostates. I hope he never gets his hands on the levers of power in the US or it will be curtains for me and Chet Snicker.