…on behalf of three misguided hecklers (thanks, Anonymous). I guess I wasn’t the only Christian who was saddened by the actions of a few fringe-dwellers. See? Team Jesus isn’t totally teh suck. 🙂
Zed told rediff.com from his home in Reno, Nevada, “I’ve received nearly 100 e-mails — and most of them from total strangers and I don’t know how they got my e-mail address — apologising for the disruption of my prayer by some of these Christian fundamentalists.”
He said many of these e-mails had said, “I am also a Christian but I don’t appreciate what happened with those people protesting, and I apologise for their misguided actions.“
“They also congratulated me for my prayer and for being the first Hindu chaplain to open a US Senate session,” he said.
He said that he had also received some e-mails from some Congressional aides who had also apologised for the disruption by these persons purporting to be from a group calling themselves Operation Save America, a Christian right-wing organisation.
What’s more wicked: intolerance or humbly offering a prayer?
The protestors shouted from the gallery, among other things, ‘Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight.’
They should ask for forgiveness for being obnoxious.
Zed said he had not received a single hate mail “or any kind of nasty mail at all. I have not got any negative mail or correspondence.”
So, goodness prevailed. More goodness? Recognizing that Hindus are just as American as anyone else and deserve to be treated as such. As long as prayers do open the Senate, they should be inclusive, to accurately reflect the various faiths that a Senator’s constituents practice. It’s only polite. And right:
Meanwhile, the Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington, DC, wrote letters to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who facilitated Zed’s prayer in the Senate, and to the Senate Chaplain Barry C Black congratulating them for facilitating the first Hindu prayer in the Senate and bemoaning the unfortunate incident of the protest by the members of the Christian right-wing outfit…
“We are writing to express how much we deeply appreciate your efforts to insure that the tradition of opening Senate sessions with prayer remains a process that not only accurately reflects the diversity of our great country, but which celebrates that religious diversity as one of our greatest strengths.”
I eagerly await irrational and inapposite comments which ask, “But…where are the apologetic emails to Graham Staines’ loved ones from Hindus, who should be collectively responsible for his brutal murder? Huh??” Oh, wait…I don’t. Such comments are not germane (or logical for that matter).
Similarly, Christians aren’t collectively to blame for the rude, disrespectful outburst which interrupted Zed, but that doesn’t mean we can’t express our sorrow and disagreement with such behavior. All that is necessary for the triumph of fundamentalism is that good people do nothing. Whatsoever we sow, we shall also reap. If we sow intolerance and disrespect, what else are we going to be shown by others? And would we deserve anything else?
Ah…patience always pays. I did not respond to the earlier thread on this because I knew where the discussion was going, and I wanted to wait for the right time.
But before, I would like to say that none of my comments below are directed towards Anna personally. It’s nice that she blogged about this and I am thankful to her for that.
What was it they say about initial conditions that set off a chain of events which take a life of their own? It’s pointless to take brownie points for judging the later events sympathetically, but at the same time detest the intial conditions that are the root cause.
Imagine an India where the Babri masjid agitation did not take place. No BJP/RSS/VHP. Rajiv Gandhi would win re-election in 1989. But he would still be assasinated (LTTE is unrelated to the Hindu right) in 1991. Sonia would become the first Christian PM (due to complete lack of resistance from the Hindu right). Congress would continue to rule with a license raj. No Narasimha Rao’s liberalisation. No Manmohanemics. Continued abject poverty and non-participation in the globalised world. No IT/BPO revolution. No nuclear tests by India. No mass migration of (largely Hindu) Indians to the US. No consistent 9% rate of growth in India for 15 years. Graham Staines would probably be leading a secessionist movement in a Christianised eastern Orissa.
In this parallel universe would the image of Hindu/India in the US be any different from what it was in the 80’s? Do you think a Hindu priest would be invited to the Senate under those conditions? Do you think (even if SM and Anna coexisted as they do today), this would be blogged sympathetically?
If you do, then I suggest watching “The butterfly effect”, “Lost in space” and the “Back to the future” series. Get lots of pop corn. Brush up on the Space Time continnium as well. And see if you can watch a particular Worff episode of multiple probabilities converging.
The guarded acceptance of Hindus and Hinduism in the world is due to two reasons:
If you want to hate the initial conditions, hate them. But then hate all the subsequent consequences as well. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Physics does not allow for that. Neither does mother Nature.
M. Nam
the return of…Naaaaaaaaaam.
i remember the old exercise: a student will ask the professor, “what would happen, if I removed this one variable?”
professor replies, “Would you not barf if it was liqour before beer? Would you not cause a noisome wind to blow if you ate beano before beans? Would there not be laughter if Russel Peters mocked the hearing impaired before skewering a stereotype? History is not a game of Jenga.”
“Imagine an America where the acculturation to high-fructose corn syrup did not occur. Where nobody became addicted to sugary tastes in everything from pizza to plum pudding. Where then, I ask you, would my economic advantage as a relatively svelte person be? Who then, pray tell, would laboriously wash my car or sweat into my morning Starbucks? I shiver at the thought.”
What exactly do Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh have to do with the Hindu right?
We can all agree that Al Qaeda is pretty good at the violence thing. So what’s holding up the Arab economic renaissance?
MoorNam: I am completely for a nuclear, assertive India that engages in the realpolitik. However, Babri Masjid/post-Godhra riots/anti-conversion laws from my perspective, as someone who is a “non-Gandhian” Hindu and deeply concerned about our community, all show a lack of confidence amongst Hindus. India has been incapable of dealing with Pakistan to avenge the deaths of Hindus in Kashmir and Indian Muslims are made the whipping boys. A train is burnt, and instead of having confidence in the justice system (before bringing up the communal issue, ask yourself has it been known to work even when both parties are Hindu?) innocent Muslims are killed. Indic religions are thriving amongst some of the most influential sections of Western society, but Indian Hindus feel incapable of addressing the spiritual & material needs of SCT/Dalits and push for anti-conversion laws. These are self destructive tendencies, India is progressing in spite of them
I don’t know who was worse, the Christians who wanted tsunami victims to convert before giving them aid or the Hindus who told Muslim victims of the Gujarat earthquake “if they recite Hindu scriptures then they can have some food.”
Either way it’s rotten.
56 · iABD on July 20, 2007 06:16 AM · Direct link
Either way it’s rotten.
Its high time the central government should promulgate an ordinance banning religious conversions which are either by ‘‘force, allurement or fraudulent means’’. Who has problem with this? No other religious organistaions except these Christian missionaries. That explains their mission!!
I am someone who has no problem with people converting from one religion to another on their own, though I wonder why any grownup would adhere strictly to a new organized religion. At least with one’s own, there is culture, tradition and habit comfort factors.
But I do get annoyed by Christian and Islamic people(not the vast majority, of course, but still significant numbers seem to exist) who think of other people as people they must convert to their religion since those people are going to hell. I remember a Christian website where the world was color coded according to diffculty of conversions and future potential for increasing converts. It was like a war map made up by the miitary who was presenting the President with a strategy. These guys use that approach. And we know how Islam has been making inroads into Africa adding religious strife to the preexisting tribal strife.
Hindus, do not rejoice by my post yet. These RSS guys who seem to be Naam’s heroes whine about conversions, but have they done anything great for the downtrodden lower castes in India for the last 60 years? While Hindus dont seek out strife in new lands, they are perfectly capable of brutality in their own areas within their own religion and with others. What happened in Gujarat with the Muslims and with the Sikhs in Delhi has no justification at all. Hindus acted like barbarians and many Hindus who condoned them(and believe me, a lot have, especially the heinous Gujarat riots; the one sidedness of the Sikh massacres are way too obvious to try to justify).
Why are people like the lataest troll mad that Sonia Gandhi could have been the first Christian PM. THe main problem was she was an unqualified Italian dimwit who didn’t want to even be an Indian citizen for a long time. It had nothing to do with her religion.
And do any people have real proof that Christian missionaries were actually withholding food unless the people converted other than rumors? Why doesn’t some Hindu guy take a documentary if this really exists. I doubt it. It could be an isolated case.
http://www.win1040.com/
India has been incapable of dealing with Pakistan to avenge the deaths of Hindus in Kashmir and Indian Muslims are made the whipping boys. A train is burnt, and instead of having confidence in the justice system (before bringing up the communal issue, ask yourself has it been known to work even when both parties are Hindu?) innocent Muslims are killed.
Well put.
There are many well documented records for these forced conversions and their effects on Indian society. One of them is a book, “Changing Gods: Rethinking Conversion in India” by sociologist Rudolf C. Heredia highlights how mass conversions have alienated people from their past traditions and “lived beliefs”.
His book portrays how forced conversions have weakened Indian society by dissociating people from their traditions and beliefs. In most cases, he says, conversions fail to alter people’s devotion to so-called pagan gods and goddesses but involves them instead in the “politics of hate”.
Mr.Rudolf C. Heredia says that he remains anchored firmly to his Catholic faith.
He is also a Catholic Jesuit priest in India.
The two issues of Christians converting because it’s in their nature, their religion dictates it, etc.. etc.. and it’s up to Hindus to make sure we don’t make Christianity/Islam/whatever such an easy sell for those who feel disenfranchised by a Hindu social heirarchy are two different points, that are absolutely uncorrelated.
The “easy sell” component only exists from the Hindu point of view. No matter if every caste/communal violence issue is solved, from a missionaries perspective, conversion to Christianity will always be an easy sell. “Not going to hell” will always be the main selling point, and always be convincing in their minds.
A Catholic who thinks what Evangelicals is doing is WRONG?? Shocking! Methinks you don’t realize how different the various strains of Christianity are.
How did Kerala survive for two millenia with those nasty Christians all over the place? Easy. Syrian/Malankara Orthodox people do not do what the people whom you have a problem with do. There are still strong elements of Hindu culture incorporated within that church. They don’t denigrate their neighbors’ faith because once upon a time, it was their own. You think Christians have a monopoly on the “politics of hate”? Hindus and Muslims are just as guilty. Every religion is flawed and those who pretend otherwise are not wise.
You think Christians have a monopoly on the “politics of hate”? Hindus and Muslims are just as guilty. Every religion is flawed and those who pretend otherwise are not wise.
What are the flaws in each faith, well its upto the followers of that faith to decide. My problem is not with any particular faith.Problems are always created by these so called ‘religious bureaucrats’ and missionaries who are in between the faith and the faithful.
In this case, all i am saying is these force conversions by Christian missions are a form of ‘religious violence’ and should be equated with any other religious violence, provocation of the majority religion in India’s case. Violence breeds violence, no point in not condemning these forced conversions and only complaining about religious intolerance etc.
So why don’t the poor Hindu people just pretend to convert like the captured soldiers in Iraq pretended to convert to Islam? Why not just create a show in front of the missionaries just to scam them? Obviously, they are not that attached to Hinduism if they can easily just switch for food even though they could still get the food by pretending to be devout coverts.
The opportunity exists because Hindus give Christian missionaries that opportunity.
The opportunity exists because it’s inherent to their religion. Don’t get me wrong, I think Hindus should take steps make every Hindu feel equal, and not feel disenfranchised. But don’t act like that will all of a sudden make evangelical Christians go away, or change their line of thinking. Sure they may have a more difficult job – but they’ll still consider it their job.
Now why would you assume that, Arya? Presumptions and assumptions are dangerous. Not to mention embarrassing. Thanks to the accident of my full name, I have been privy to casteist and religious slurs and smirks that I was not meant to hear had I been called Mary Pichai. (I am not saying you did that). I know Christians with names such as Manimekalai, Krishnaswamy, and Arumugam.
Now don’t get defensive. Hear me out. I grew up in a multi-religious environment–where individuals from at least 3 religions moulded and shaped my understanding of and responsibilities towards the world. Then add to that my own exploration, as a teen, of Marx chacha (although he is not considered cool anymore and any insights he gave me into understanding my world are not considered kosher by the world), the rationalists, and J. Krishnamurti, and what you get is, a wonderful avial. I bring all this into my marriage with someone who is not dogmatic about his own background, and thus my kids will be raised in this ‘multi-awareness’ environment*. So, I will not be restricted to the label of a Hindu, however expansive and accomodating it is said to be.
Conversion does not always mean having your head ducked in water, given a new name and a crucifix and given a baptism certificate for proof. Gentle persuasion, benign introductions to one’s way of thinking happen everyday. “Come to Thursday’s Sai bhajans, OK?” is one way, although yes, extremely mild and hardly inseparable from the mere cultural role the gathering may be fulfilling. (And I am not offended by that; if I like the person who is inviting, I may even go.) I engage in mild persuasions all the time–evrytime I finish a good book I want the next person I meet to know about it and I try to get them to read that book.
I know firsthand that religiously, philosophically speaking, and as a way of life Hinduism is pluralistic. But politically speaking in the present day there is only one Hindu identity. I cannot separate my political awareness from my religious journeys. I know that several of you are able to do that but given my background and origins, I cannot.
You don’t have to rely on pews and followers these days as long as you can sell your brand and books. But irrespective of that I have several people around me who think that if I am not ideologically adhering to a single organized religion, then I should be buying into Chopra’s version of spirituality. I do not. And I am critical of his brand only because he constantly flaunts his M.D. credentials, and given my professional training and line of work, I am troubled by that. If it weren’t for that I wouldn’t even be singling him out from all the others who like to shape our faith in God.
In my previous post, I separated the Deepak Chopras of the world from the people who pray in the world (although, they overlap). You have combined them.
Anyway, prayerful people are everywhere. As in my dear friend across the big pond who will write to me, ‘I will keep you in my prayers.’ I am truly NOT offended by that. I have come to understand it as an euphemism for ‘I love you; I care about you very much; I want you to be happy; I am showing it by keeping you in my prayers.’ It is also a rhetoric of mild persuasion to one’s way of thinking, but that’s OK, I will let that pass. Where I seriously have a problem is when all the shoddy, so-called scientific studies come out claiming prayer cures the 3rd person or prayer alone achieves the inachievable. Again, I am able to see the power of prayers to the self, just as meditation may have certain tangible, measurable benefits to the self and create ripple effects, but I am wary of it beign peddled as a major weapon of choice to fight all the ‘unfairness’ of the world.
Bring me the statistics that shows this is the biggest, most urgent problem in India today and then I will see past my suspicion that all such concerns, such outrage, are only politically motivated.
Sorry about the length of the post, mutineers
But don’t act like that will all of a sudden make evangelical Christians go away, or change their line of thinking. Sure they may have a more difficult job – but they’ll still consider it their job.
The MO of missionaries on the ground is not primarily “escape fromn caste oppression” – that’s an ex post facto rationalization for elite consumption. It serves to neutralize protest against broadbased and extremely well-funded conversion activities, and sort of elides the very real problems of caste within the Christian community. At one time the Christian MO was upper caste emulation –acting like Brahmins, practicing untouchability. But that approach didn’t work very well.
The primary approach now is “my God has power, your gods don’t,” so they conjure up “faith healings,” provide “miracle wish boxes” where everything inserted comes true; secondly, allurements – money, education, etc; third, charismatic gatherings.
The Hindu response has been (1) take them on on the ground, a la the VHP “reconversion” drives, or (2) claim that Christianity is corrupt and hypocritical, e.g., how dare you act sanctimonious about Dalits when your whole history is tainted by bloodshed, hate-acts and the sanctioning of slavery?. The first approach has led to some unfortunate millitancy; the second one is silly from a Christian perspective, because they know, according to their mythology, that everyone is born a sinner, so having a history of sin in Christianity is no big deal. In fact, they will readily admit it. A third approach is to claim the superiority of Hindu philsophy, particularly Advaita Vedanata, to Christian dualism, since Hindus believe that their spirtual approach resonates more closely with modern science; and of Hindu acceptance of multiple apporaches to God and its conflict resolution mechanism which allowed for the co-existence of radically different spiritual visions.. The problem with this apporach is that its happened before. The Roman pagans were accepting of mnultiple approaches, and the elites were monists, schooled in very sophisticated Neoplatonism – not to far from Hindu non-dualism, right on the verge of the victory of Christianity in the West.
Bring me the statistics that shows this is the biggest, most urgent problem in India today and then I will see past my suspicion that all such concerns, such outrage, are only politically motivated.
An intense movement of conversion towards Christianity has taken place over the years in North-East India; indeed, in several of these nort eastern states, entire populations have been converted. The percentage of the Christian population in these states in 1901, 1951 (after independence) and 1991 is as follows:
State 1901 1951 1991 Arunachal Pradesh NA * NA * 10.29 Assam 0.4 2.00 3.32 Manipur 0.016 11.84 34.12 Meghalaya 6.16 24.66 64.58 Mizoram 0.05 90.52 85.73 Nagaland 0.59 46.05 87.47 Tripura 0.08 0.82 1.69
how they did this,methods like ‘miracle box’conversions are carried out by placing “miracle boxes” in local churches. The gullible villager writes out a request – a loan, a pucca house, fees for the son’s schooling. A few weeks later, the miracle happens. And the whole family converts,making others in the village follow suit.
many of these ‘majority converted’ states are facing Separatist movements by terrorists.
Once India and Hindus have been beaten black and blue, we will start getting Achebe-like sentiments from the chatterati.
They paid for his son’s schooling? The fiends!
“They paid for his son’s schooling? The fiends!”
it’s actually possible to pay for someone’s schooling without passing it off as a “miracle.” there’s such a thing as sheer altruism, without expecting payment in kind or someone’s eternal soul in return. and this applies to anyone.
I’m sure there’s a lot of “sheer altruism” going on. I’m sure not many people are converting because they have guns to their heads.
AR, it’s easy to call all these people “gullible.” I suppose you could call anyone who believes in any religion “gullible.”
“I’m sure not many people are converting because they have guns to their heads.”
well there are different triggers one can pull, if you will. by all means pay for someone’s schooling – but why disguise such a good deed in the form of a cheap stunt? insecure about the efficacy or persuasiveness of the message itself? insecurity seems to run deep in all religions – whether it’s insecurity about survival and maintenance of status quo in the face of attempts to convert you or insecurity that not everyone in the world has heard about a particular god and believes in him (or chooses to hear or believe in him).
what’s funny is that some companies can be prosecuted for attaching false claims and unproven benefits to their products but religions (all of them) are given a free pass.
re VHP: The VHP was actually founded not to beat down Muslims, but as a response to Christian conversions. Millitant modes feed off of each other. But fundamentalist Christians have a massive financial advantage over Hindu groups. There are groups working to create the perception that Christians are mercilessly marginalized in India – as an example, a number of news outlets (Christian owned and run, like Journal Chretien, from France) daily publicize anti-Hindu ‘atrocities’ against Christians, when the truth is that the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians get on fine in India. In Kerala, they are arguably the hegemonic community.
This type of publicity undoubetedly helps their western fundraising efforts.
In the pagan world, Christians were succesful in creting a victim narrative. One should read pagan authors who opposed Christianity to see that things haven’t changed all that much.
Also, the western “rights” discourse frames religion as a “personal matter,” which is simply the secular codification of protestant theology. Other sociological viewpoints are not considered, for example, the harm proselytization does to communities, and the tension it creates within longstanding cultural ecosystems.
In general, some sections among several generations of Indian middle class went through convent/Jesuit/any Christian denomination schooling in India and learnt what was needed to be upwardly mobile and left the rest. Today, their identity is not at all threatened. So why is it difficult for us to trust those who are below us in the social pecking order to pick and choose, try out several caps, even go full circles, in their spiritual and material journeys? We just don’t think they are capable of intelligent thought processes, is that it? We treat them like ‘little children’ who need to be told what is best for them.
But sometimes, our children are more perceptive than us self-absorbed adults who are supposedly ‘responsible’ for them. Every parent here knows that.
I find it hard to understand how you can raise kids without practicing a particular religion? Sure you can teach them to respect all, but you cant practice all? You can practice one or none at all! We have enuf confused kids in the world trying to find themselves!! Religion to me is a way of life. It shapes my whole identity and it is very important to have a firm identity in place especially as a mother in order to have firm answers and actions without any confusion in my mind. It boosts their confidence in a way that is undescribable.
Having said that, let me get back on track to malathi’s point- I am practicing what I preach. I am not threatened by religions and I don’t fear losing them to other philosophies/cultures/religious traditions. I want them to explore as much as possible. And as long as my husband and I remain their loving, non-judgemental parents, they will come back to us, one way or the other.
—-So if you teach one thing to your kids and somebody else goes ahead and takes the liberty to teach them something else-something thats entirely against your wishes, you would’nt mind? Was’nt there an article on sm, about how religious groups on college campuses are trying to mould youths in to their way of life and finally into accepting their religion? Somebody at some point is going to influence our kids, why can’t it be the parents themselves! Exploring is one thing-it is something you do voluntarily on your own – but if somebody else is going to tell them how to explore, i would rather it’s me and not THEM. And that does not make me any less of a loving parent than atheists. If you don’t stand up for something-you will fall for anything!!
I wouldnt want this person teaching my kids.
Arya asks:
It’s not hard. One can take the best parts of a few religions and follow them as one package with a primary adherance to one of them. Hell, religions can evolve. Hinduism has changed over time. Why can’t a Hindu change more? There is nothing magical about the first version of scripture.
Personally, I am agnostic. But it is fun to follow religions. Kind of like philosophy to me. That is why I hate it when Hinduism seems to be taken more and more literally these days. The nice thing about it used to be it wasn’t so simplistic in the past compared to some other religions about how these are the ways things should be. At least according to my interpretation.
Analyzing the Evangelical MO does not make one “insecure.” Surely if a western country was being steadily proselytized by groups with very large financial resources many organizations would study the issue, its impact on the nation, communities and the political order, irresepective of “rights” discourse?
Evangelical Christian groups spend millions of dollars on surveilance of Hindus, right down to the village level – examining insecurities and possible fault lines. They do this globally as well, eg, the Joshua Project.
Western scholarship has analzyed Hinduism from every disciplinary perspective imaginable, whereas the middle-class Hindu understanding of Christianity is that Christ was a Yogi, and that in any case all religions are the same.
Are the Christian truth claims open to analysis in India? Or would that be considered a fascistic act?
by whom?
Reminds me of a friend of mine Eric, who said he followed “Ericism” I think inherent to a religious following is the idea of adhering to certain practices that are above and beyond you. It’s almost a kind of NLP – engage in some kind of phsyical act to bring about a state. Yes Hinduism has changed, but those changes have taken 1000’s of years.
I used to attend a few SRF (self realization fellowship) events in the pacific palisades, they do precisely what you talk about, they take the christian approach (services, with singing, donation boxes, very little Hindu ritual) but give sermons on predominantly Hindu philosophical points of view. yes, its fusion, yes its great, but I knew what a traditional Hindu religious ceremony looked like, and I knew what a traditional Christian ceremony looked like, so I could say to myself, “this is a combo of the two”
Bruce Lee was over 10 years established in Yip Man Wing Chun before formulating JKD.
Pravin, I feel exactly the same way.I used to believe that Hinduism = tolerance and took the Gita literally when it said that all prayers go to one God regardless of what anyone called that God :Jesus/Allah/Ram/Ganesh etc.I truly believed that I could be a Hindu and not have to wear tilak, go to a temple regularly , perform elaborate poojas etc. But lately it seems that you need to wear your religious beliefs ostentatiously to be accepted as a true beleiver -which I will never subscribe to.
Tread very carefully here, Arya, because if I am in an irritable mood, I might take this as a criticism of our (my husband’s and mine) parenting style, and our value systems.
We have enough identities that ground us. We are not wandering aimlessly through the darkness, we are contributing, tax-paying members of the society. We have our careers, our hobbies, our pet issues and causes.
It is difficult for most people whose identity is tied to a single religion to understand. It is also difficult for people who equate atheism to immorality, lack of values to understand. Not many people recognize my state of being or add any value to my abstract intellectual and emotional confidence and security (there is definitely no market value to it; especially in the marriage market). It is a very personal thing, in fact something that perhaps only my husband can recognize or appreciate. However, it is true that I took my time arriving here and it was not an easy journey. That actually made me understand why all the social forces in the world steer you towards the herd mentality. The tradeoff when you follow the ‘leader’ is you don’t have to make all decisions by yourself or live your own lonely life at times. There are several perks when you are comfortably in the system.
So I don’t expect my kids’ journies to be easy. It will take them a lot longer to figure out who they are and what they stand for than their average peers, maybe. In the process they will even come to hate me at times. And if one of them decides to run for the American presidency maybe they will have to be really good at what they do, because I will be their weak point (note how Obama’s mother’s ideas on religion were brought in early to discredit him). So what? Whoever said life is easy?
An English, feminist, atheist professor in NH once said that her kids were in the Catholic school because she wanted them to rebel against the church, not against her. I totally understand her words.
I am not outsourcing my job as a parent. In fact, I spend every waking, non-working hour with them doing things with them; sharing all the things I love about this world with them. But now is not the time to teach them why I am an atheist. There will come a time when they will ask me questions. Until then they can learn about the concept of God that is so important for the majority of the world from precisely that outside world (with me listening nearby; yes, I take them to church and sunday school and the Hindu temple and so on…no abode is off-limits). And just as I have to gently tell them that there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy, there will come a time when they will hear my thoughts on the (existence/non-existence of) God. I am not going to ram that down their throats, but they will listen to my words carefully, and decide what is best for them as adults.
Word!
As an unbeliever, I frankly find some of this discussion about missionaries luring people under false pretenses ludicrous. Club A offers me guaranteed poverty in this life, and intangible promises of moksha in the next or some subsequent life. Club B offers me food for the next month, or clothing or schooling for my children, or a way out of my oppressive penury. I know which one I’d join. Maybe club A needs to figure out a new recruitment strategy, now that the passive-aggressive technique of coopting everybody into the fold independent of their beliefs is not working.
(My statement is provoked by some of the comments here. I am actually uncomfortable with the hectoring, “holier-than-thou” atheism model of Dawkins and Hitchens, although that behavior is mostly harmless in a world dominated by religion, and might serve as an important pushback.)
malathi, be careful. They might not love you anymore if you do that. Even if they still eat samosas for lunch.
I feel exactly the same way.I used to believe that Hinduism = tolerance and took the Gita literally when it said that all prayers go to one God regardless of what anyone called that God :Jesus/Allah/Ram/Ganesh etc.
This is an illogical position to take, is it not? Jesus claims to be the only Son of God. Allah doesn’t have any sons! The genericization is frankly a modern Hindu overlay on Abrahamic positions.
My statement is provoked by some of the comments here. I am actually uncomfortable with the hectoring, “holier-than-thou” atheism model of Dawkins and Hitchens, although that behavior is mostly harmless in a world dominated by religion, and might serve as an important pushback
But “atheism” has longstanding roots within India. They were never burnt at the stake. Most Hindu’s would probably give a rat’s ass if you said you believed in nothing, including the millitants, so who exactly are you pushing back?
a lot of desi hindus assume your a loony if you dont believe in god. maybe in some holy book they dont give a rats as, but in reality a lot of people do.
You’re right. “Atheism” (with quotes) has a longstanding tradition with the advaita/dvaita/vishishtadvaita/brahman inside/all-pervasive brahman etc. stuff (I’m not an expert). Most desi Hindus like to consider my atheism “atheism”. As PindaUSA says, in practice, people give more than a rat’s ass. I speak from personal experience.
Yes, life is hard for the young ones! Why make it even harder?
I am certainly not teaching my little girl to wear tilak everyday or go to temple but hinduism is something that will shape her individuality and her future. I want to make sure she has a place to turn to when she is lost or confused, something that will guide her in the right direction when her mind is overwhelmed, something where she will feel at home and close too because that is what her parents/grandparents/great grandparents used to do. And we as adults know that there is something very peaceful and very comforting about that.
Highhanded, Is it really? If one belives in a Creator is it so difficult to imagine that HE/SHE would have wanted all peoples in the world to be included in His/Her love/blessings? To me that is logical rather than a Creator who would say that “you will not be included because you do not believe this or that “.
For me it is like languages .A mother is called Ma, madre, maman, mamacita etc etc but a mother is a mother the world over.My interpretation – which I do not claim is correct or the only one- is that there is nothing in Hinduism that prevents me from co-opting other gods
In any case, I would hesitate to bring logic into a discussion on faith because there is an inherent contradiction. What makes a piece of stone a deity to me and a rock to another is faith, not logic.
Are you sure that Jesus himself took that position? And not his followers after him or those who inscribed the Bible?
But they might already hear “oh science, oh science, oh science” coming from your bedroom.
Alright, that was over the line, even for me. I take it back.
Secondly, I hear you when it comes to the “system” but young children don’t have the decisive capability that most adults do, so personally, I can see the systematic approach being necessary in the early age where some kind of “self-identification” is necessary.
lot of desi hindus assume your a loony if you dont believe in god. maybe in some holy book they dont give a rats as, but in reality a lot of people do.
Historically there have been absolute materialist-atheist schools in India (as in China, ancient Greece) that would have been an impossibility in the Christian world until very recent times. I contend that being an atheist is no big deal in India, and many modern Hindus, including Gandhi, found nothing inconsonant with being an atheist and a Hindu. It is a much bigger deal here. For example, there have been many atheist politicians in India, but getting elected as an atheist in the United States is highly unlikely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvaka
Arya, you have clearly made a choice regarding your parenting decisions and your ideas regarding the importance of a religious upbringing for your children. That is completely ok. Why is it so hard to understand that malathi is making the same decision? I’m sure you’re speaking out of concern, but questioning her decisions sounds more like condescension in this case.
As someone who was raised in a relatively religious household, I often wonder if I would have been better off being exposed to many religious world views when I was younger. It took a me a long time to realize that what my parents had taught me regarding morality, values, etc., had nothing to do with religion. Yes, I can quote back and tell you where they derive their interpretation, but I’ve met so many other peers who, raised in the same faith, had completely different value systems. Is that a bad thing? No. But I think it emphasizes that one’s personal ethics need not be taught through religion. For you, these answers are in your religious upbringing. For others, it comes from life experiences, from personal philosophies, from conversations and complexity. Both are valid and legitimate. If it doesn’t effect you, why do you feel the need to project your expectations and concerns onto others?
Are you sure that Jesus himself took that position? And not his followers after him or those who inscribed the Bible?
Well the claims of his existence are based on the Bible, otherwise what stops anyone from making a claim, like the Christ the Yogi fantasy amongst Hindus?
Admittedly, the Bible is a shaky source and throws into question his very existence. One should read Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” to understand the politics that went into the fabricating of the text.
In the Bible he most certainly claimed he was the only way to his father. He also sent innocent animals (pigs) off of a cliff by claiming to transfer demons into them and exterminated a fig tree. He said he was coming back, rather soon, and that everyone had better be prepared – or else.
Now would a yogi do this?
“Analyzing the Evangelical MO does not make one “insecure.” Surely if a western country was being steadily proselytized by groups with very large financial resources many organizations would study the issue, its impact on the nation, communities and the political order, irresepective of “rights” discourse?”
actually i don’t disagree with you. i just expressed that bit badly. i don’t think analyzing orchestrated campaigns is insecurity and i don’t think such an “insecurity” is an unsurprising reaction or unwarranted in relation to certain conversion approaches.
I’ve always wanted to quote some warped out part of the bible during grace. one of the parts about winged monkeys and the end of the world or something.
Yes, I totally understand individuality and the need to be protective of it. I abhor being told what I should do with my life for the sake of social peace and harmony.
When my life is hard, I turn to books, literature, philosophy, writing, words–Indian, American, English, Russian, Nigerian, Somali, A N N A’s, my husband’s, _____ (fill in the blank); world music; people–family, friends, strangers, volunteers, environmentalists, book club members, onliners______; humor–Shaw, Comedy Central, _____; movies–Russian, Iranian, ______; live theatre–opera, Kuchipudi, plays, ______; and sometimes, periodically, to my own silence.
If my kids have the luxury of picking one or more of these general habits to help themselves, that would be good. perhaps, they will in turn teach me one or more other habits. Like my 5-year old paints with such concentration. And loves to practice her piano, a privilege I did not grow up with…
Like I said before, this is the reason I cannot put all my trust in one place:
So let me be. I have earned this cocoon. And the world is my children’s oyster. Even though they will be periodically let down by one aspect or the other, they should learn that no one aspect is to be relied upon.
I recommend Ezekiel 25:17 (go to 06:17) for breakfast.