Via SAJAForum, an…interesting political cartoon by Ted Rall which experiments with a provocative question: what if Republican threat to everything presidential candidate Mike Huckabee were a different sort of fundamentalist?
Here are the cartoonist’s own words regarding this work, from his blog:
Today’s cartoon responds to the generally respectful tone accorded Mike Huckabee, who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic. [vague link]
I do appreciate Rall’s overarching point– Huckabee is allowed to be as batshit crazy as he wants to be because he’s on the fundamentalist fringe of my religion instead of any other one– since I’m no fan of the preacher man. It’s a very valid concern.However, I also cringed slightly at how Rall made his point. I cynically wonder whether people will get mired in “Hinduism is strange” instead of questioning why we aren’t more worried about the rise of this candidate. After all, if Rall’s conception of Hindu fundamentalism (cobras? chanting? SATI??) confuses slightly-familiar-with-Hinduism-me, what will those with even less exposure to the religion think?
And if you are Hindu (as I think a majority of our readers are), are you offended by this cartoon?
How is reincarnation “funny” ? Most liberals in this country are not physical reductionists and I don’t think Rall made this cartoon for the largely atheist/agnostic American Assoc for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) newsletter. This cartoon is supposed to be making some point about fundamentalists. Most liberal Dem Christians believe in a non-material soul that survives bodily death. Using this as a baseline for reasonable belief, how is reincarnation any kookier than that immaterial soul spending eternity in heaven ? I’ll take symbolic marriage with dogs & trees and ignorance over capillary action over more corrosive forms of delusion anyday.
when i read this cartoon i thought; wow, rall is asking his peeps to accord huckabee the same cultural sensitivity they’d accord to a non-christian religionists. but appartently he’s unaware such sensitivity exists. so easy to see double standards in others, so hard to see it in ourselves.
Don’t be ridiculous. This has come up a few times recently and it’s pure trolling. All we have ever said is that we do not endorse, because we are non-partisan and that was never part of our purpose.
Why challenge Anna when Abhi commented on this thread with just as much “disapproval” of Huckabee’s views? What about Amardeep’s Obama thread? No umbrage about our being hypocritical regarding “endorsements” there?
I want some of what you drank. I’ve NEVER heard anyone justify practices like casteism and sati. I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of Americans give more credence to Christian ‘theology’ as opposed to Hindu ‘mythology,’ no?
That’s how it comes across to me, too, though perhaps with a more emotional slant: “You’d be more respectful to some crazy Hindu (jungle superstition) beliefs than you are to his (good old Amurrican) Christian beliefs.” Sort of a self-pitying “We (majority “normal” religion) are so persecuted!”
Now, keep in mind I don´t know of Ted Rall’s body of work…but then, should you need to know someone’s whole body of work in order to correctly interpret one piece of it? (I think that´s a sign of a weak piece of work.)
46 · nala said
Hinduism doesn’t have something analogous to the Bible or Koran (btw these texts aren’t analogous to each other either). I guess Hindu fundamentalism can be defined as fanatically following traditional Hindu practices and forcing others to do the same. I don’t think fundamentalism exists in Hinduism nearly as much as it exists in Christianity and Islam.
And “Hindutva = fascism” is simplistic. Hindutvadis see Hindus as an ethnic group that have been wronged and marginalized and seek to stand up for Hindu rights. Hindutvadis when in power have generally rolled back government control and when they lost elections Hindutvadis have ceded power. Fascists are by definition totalitarian, Hindutvadis are not.
Being a kind of lazy Hindu and also a scholar of Hinduism, I think this cartoon is pretty funny, actually. But that’s largely because I’m pretty familiar with Hinduism, and also Christianity. I mean, how many Christians know about the story of the prophet Elisha sending bears to maul several small children who called him “baldy?” But it would make for a great obscure reference in a comic book.
I know a few fundamentalist Christians who are as rigid as this cartoon implies, and think that their view is normal and everyone else is crazy, and remain my friends because they are under the delusion that if they talk to me about Jesus enough, I’ll convert. Like the ones who believe women should be subservient to their husbands and never be in a position of leadership over a man. Or the ones who believe that the earth was created in seven days by an invisible all-powerful god. As a Hindu, at least my religion allows room for philosophical difference and lots of use of metaphor rather than literalism. So I guess from that perspective, I think his use of very rigid and antiquated beliefs (still held by some extreme fundamentalist Hindus) is clever.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to elect a fundamentalist or a propagandist of any stripe to the White House – not when it’s your job to govern a nation that is by definition full of many diverse beliefs and practices, and where those you govern have been guaranteed certain rights. We’ve got one crazy guy in the White House now who’s doing his best to circumvent lots of civil liberties in the name of religion, fundamentalism, neo-conservatism and other fun stuff. It’ll be tough to undo that damage. Oy vey.
“i cant say i’ve enjoyed rall’s cartoons. i dont even agree with a lot of his commentary. but i’ve seen a lot of it to realize that this is not anything he’s singling hindus out for. yet, it’s a fair question [Rahul] on why he chose hinduism, when he could have his pick from Christianity, Islam or Judaism. they were each fair game. I would tend to believe (via Razib) a. it’s because hindus have the weakest lobby of all, or b. because the mythology offers the largest comic target for drawing parallels with huckabees creationist beliefs”
I can’t say for sure that Ted Rall knows dick-all about Hinduism but he probably does know that the unfamiliar makes for a good corollary example in the realm of political humor. He could have made the cartoon about something that is really foreign to the US, such as Zoroastrianism (of which I believe there are far fewer houses of worship in the US), and made essentially the same, “his nutty but familiar beliefs are just as nutty as these nutty beliefs with which you, dear reader, are not familiar. I’m pretty sure you won’t do any research because you’re just waitin’ for a good guffaw. Gawd those fundies are dum-dums.”
nala,
I think that the definition is made, especially in lefty blogs, in reference to beliefs that would reasonably have illiberal effects upon the society in which they were implemented. Rall is trying to say, indirectly, that as president, Huckaboom/bee/bust would have a negative effect on science education, public health and women’s rights.
This analogy is quite wrong in 2 of the 4 cartoons. ‘Sati’ and ‘Untouchability’ are issues concerned with “human rights” and no “hindu fundamentalist politican” i know in India clamor for unbanning ‘Sati’ and ‘Untouchability’. This is comparing apples and oranges.
The other two cartoons are funny, believing that earth is held up by four elephants is funny, equivalent to the belief that God impregnated some virgin to give birth to Jesus or Allah taking Muhammad on a winged horse to heaven. we can make fun of those and laugh.
Hindu fundamentalism is a fringe concept with few followers. There is however large numbers of Hindu fascists and they promote the Hindutva social order that threatens to destabilize India. The origin of their hate has more in common with the racialist pseudoscience of twentieth century European fascists than the literalism of Muslim and Christian fundamentalists. It’s about blood and culture, not metaphysics/theology.
I agree. Good point.
I cynically wonder whether people will get mired in “Hinduism is strange†instead of questioning why we aren’t more worried about the rise of this candidate
To an average American, Hinduism is probably strange. If you are mostly exposed to the dominant religion in the US (Christianity) and you go to India and see gods who look like monkeys or gods with multiple hands, it will look strange.
I was talking to this Saudi dude, who was raised in Saudi Arabia and he left Saudi Arabia for the first time to come to the US for graduate school. He told me that seeing pictures of Jesus all around and statutes of Mary in Catholic churches was really strange.
Cobra Kai? As in, the baddies from Karate Kid?
How is reincarnation “funny” ? Most liberals in this country are not physical reductionists and I don’t think
A 2005 Harris poll commissioned by Yoga Journal found that 16.5 million Americans practice yoga regularly. A 2004 Gallup Poll found 72 million Americans — 24% — believe in reincarnation, an astonishing number that has held steady for decades and cuts across all religious affiliations, including even 10% of evangelical Christians.
Khoofia, my point was not to make fun of people who reject evolution, but rather to point out that the claim that Huckabee’s viewpoint on the matter represents the “lunatic fringe” of American Christianity is simply not correct. Perhaps American secularists are out of touch with the ground reality (to use a worn Indian phrase) in the country. Or perhaps they have nothing but disdain for the general population. I do think its problematic to elect a leader whose beliefs on these matters could affect policy – i.e., “faith based initiatives” to convert third-world heathen, the promotion of ID in schools, etc.
HarlemSun: Thanks, but I couldn’t get your link to open.
Because if he chose Judaism or Islam, it wouldn’t be as offensive to fundamentalist Christians who were the target of his “joke”. Instead he chose a non-Abrahamic religion that would be somewhat familiar to the general American public and one that the Christian fundamentalists would call “ungodly” because it is, they believe, “polytheistic”. The offense -is supposed to be- in showing some similarities between the two and about how ridiculous the fundies are for mistaking “truths” for fact.
Am I the only one here who actually likes Huckabee because of his sense of humor. As we all know even though he is not a foreign policy expert he did stay in an Holiday Inn express last night.
I like Huckabee and would love to see a Huckabee – Obama contest. Both of them seem to talk from their heart and sound honest. In yesterday’s debate, the best moment was when he cornered Romney with the question of “which position?”. Romney was flabbergasted for a few moments. 🙂
Khoofia, regarding your post 44, if Ted Rall isn’t ill-informed, then are you saying that he has made a deliberate or reckless attack on Hinduism by using unfair comparisons (as people have pointed out)? I’m not arguing against you, I’m just trying to clarify. From what you’ve said, I get the sense that he has done the research in the sense that he knows about these beliefs, including the creation story (which is just one of many stories)–but not enough research to recognize that the analogies he is using are false (i.e. there is no overriding central text which prescribes a set of behaviour that must be followed, many of the beliefs are historical rather than accepted tenets etc.). However, you know more about this individual than I do, so perhaps he has acted deliberately or recklessly (i.e. he doesn’t really care whether he is using the right analogy in order to further his shock value point) in using those particular examples.
I agree with you Bess–using Islam or Judaism isn’t enough of a distinction to make the point effectively. The other Abrahamic religions get accorded a level of grudging respect that the non-Abrahamic religions don’t. And given that the mainstream does see the religion as foreign and different, it does underscore the point. It’s just that he’s contorting the square peg shape of the religion to fit into his round hole analogy and for those who have some familiarity with the subject matter, it doesn’t sit well. And I suppose he could have chosen scientology, but that gets into points made earlier about the reaction that would engender. On the other hand, how much clout do wiccans have?
As an aside, I’m not sure if the point was to offend certain denominations of Christians as much as it was to raise the issue with the broader group out there.
50 · SkepMod said
I think it is slightly more nuanced than that. There is a difference betweeen social evils/religious superstitions and fundamentalism ( though one may feed the other to an extent). All the four cartoons by Rall is an example of the former more than the latter. In fact at my place of work when we were dicussing about religion in India/of Hindus, my white male colleague passed a jocular remark about “porcelain gods“….I didn’t get offended because I think Hinduism is too complicated and exotic for white people who believe in monotheistic religions to understand.
Anna, you are fears are coming tru on this thread and aren’t your above sentences kind of slightly contradictory ?
I am not sure that I understand your comment. Would you be kind enough to just state what you find contradictory so I know exactly what you mean, and then I can respond?
Bongsie at 62, yes, exactly. 🙂
Ente, you’re right he’s contorting and, I bet, Rall doesn’t care who else might be offended by his lampooning of Huckabee (and the Christian fundies). I know Wiccanism is, for the most part, a nature religion, but most still think it’s satanism, etc. (I took a religious studies course on Witchcraft and Paganism. The textbook was written by NPR’s Margot Adler. I was surprised by how many ex-Catholics were Wiccans.)
I think the implication is that Anna, you have levied an insult at Hinduism (Hinduism is strange), yet somewhat hypocritically ask if the cartoon does as well.
69 · A N N A said
By the above sentence you mean (?) that you want the thread to discuss more on the rise of Huckabee instead of discussing Hindusim is strange issue
But this sentence would probably lead the discussion to very area that your previous sentence didn’t want to go into
risible said
The poll results are strangely formatted, but it does work for me. Try this. No spitting on the keyboard when you see how many Americans believe Noah’s ark trolled the oceans 🙂
You may laugh at the last frame since it has been setup in the first. Otherwise if you have to explain & discuss this much, it doesn’t even deserve to be called a joke !
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with fanatically following traditional hindu practices as long as you don’t force anyone else to do the same. There are people who do their rituals 3 times a day, others fast multiple times a month, some swear to wear only white forever, etc. etc. These are of course only the “normal fanatics”. Then there are the fringe fanatics who do all kinds of punishing things to themselves. To each his own. Sometimes when I see extreme sports it reminds me of these guys. It may not seem like the road to happiness but perhaps some of us do have to go down some extreme roads to work out our kinks.
To me hindu fundamentalism is stuff like literally believing the epics, insisting that Rama existed (so what if he did or didn’t), taking umbrage over the fact that hindu literature is called mythology and not religion, insisting that the hindu gods must also be spelt with a capital “G” (currently this honor is denied to the pagan gods). But the real scourge of hinduism imo is not fanaticism but supersitition.
There’s a contradiction right there: The most important traditional Hindu practice is to let others practise whatever they want (as long as the others don’t want to stop you from practicing what you want). I call it the Zero’th Guideline of Hinduism.
Hindu fundamentalism, as others have pointed out, assumes that there are fundamentals that every Hindu must follow. Considering that it’s not true, the term is meaningless. The only term that has some meaning is: A Hindu’s Fundamentalism – thus guaranteeing individuality to every Hindu to practise what he/she considers fundamental to his/her interpretition of Hinduism.
For me, a Hindu fundamentalist is one who:
That’s it. It’s more or less American Libertarianism + Karma/Rebirth.
M. Nam
“I find it somewhat disturbing that the american people are electing a president based on their perception of whether he is someone they would sit down with for a drink….
After reading that I have to post this artice on The Onion called “Long-Awaited Beer With Bush Really Awkward, Voter Reports”
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42590
The picture that goes along with the artice is priceless.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what’s so ‘fundamentalist’ about being annoyed that your literature isn’t accorded the same level of implicit belief and respect as others? And it seems that real Hindu fundamentalists would be the least likely to care about this issue (and also the issue about Hindu deities being spelled with a capital ‘G’ when referred to as god/goddess).
But #2 and #3 don’t necessarily have anything to do with Brahman for many people.
Those people are not Hindu fundamentalists according to me. I could give a detailed explanation, but it’s off topic – so another time.
On topic – Huckabee’s all right. In a democracy, one has to pick the person who’s the least problematic and one who has the most chance of getting elected.
M. Nam
ente
ente, I thought about the above debate. even if my reaction is different probably due to past exposure to rall’s work – i do not disagree the point made by many (incl. anna, floridian, rahul, you) that this is cringeworthy/offensive. to encapsulate a complex culture into four panels is not doing justice to a civilization. there are factual errors to say the least. i also will not claim to speak for why rall singled out hinduism. I do not know what’s in the guy’s mind. all these are lines in the sand and i can see myself arguing for both sides as the mood strikes… so i will pull myself out of that debate.
however…! i find my stance hardening on one thing and it was rall’s comment that irked me first.
it is wrong to dismiss huckabee on the grounds of his creationist beliefs (alone) and to call him a lunatic. i have gone into this earlier – but faith and logic are different life-pillars and can exist side by side, rather than one on top of the other. on a personal note, i have one friend who believes in out of body experiences (could be the experiments she did with chemicals in her youth 😉 and another who think the world as we know it is coming to an end in a few years, as predicted by the mayan calendar. i believe that when there is a strong personal bond between people, it has them connect in ways that can not be explained by reason. that aside, my friends and i are really hard nosed people in our work lives. having faith in the supernatural or the illogical doesnt make one a bad person or a bad administrator. so keep an open mind around huckabee, folks, and i hope the best person gets elected for the US prez.
Correct. The country is becoming increasingly intolerant of alternate viewpoints. Both the left and right are equally guilty of this. Evolution is not proven and neither is Creationism.
If one started labelling others as lunatics for such things, every candidate could be termed a lunatic by 30% of the country (atheists) because they all have professed belief in an omnipotent God. Most of the candidates can be labelled lunatics by Libertarians because they promise bigger Government. And so on and so forth…
M. Nam
14 · louiecypher said
Nicely done, louiecypher.
First of all, it is mythology. Why clamor for a false, phony and fake status? Second, and more importantly, the traditions of India were never conceived of as a religion. If you force fit them into the religious conceptual framework, you can only expect (well-deserved) ridicule in return. To demand that Indian literature be accorded the same level of implicit belief as the others is right up there with demanding that creationists be allowed the same level of respect as the scientists. From some of the comments here it seems that that’s quite alright. Fortunately, others are not so shy to take a firm stand one way or the other.
If instead hindus forgot about all the religious nonsense and simply stuck to tradition, these problems do not crop up. Nobody has to explain tradition. That’s just what people do because that’s what their parents and grand-parents did. Plus, you can have the magic of tradition without buying into any corny belief system.
83· MoorNam said
MoorNam, this isn’t quite correct. Not sure if you are a scientist (I am not), but if 90% of the scientific community and 99% of the scientific teaching community agree that evolution is scientifically proven, and that without knowledge of evolution, literacy cannot be attained, then I would stop equating evolution with creationism. But then I don’t question plumbers on the efficacy of water closets vs. holes in the ground, or mechanics on using gas vs. water in my bike either, so maybe I’m just lazy. 😉 See this for the National Science Teachers’ Association’s position on evolution, and this for dialog on how teaching evolution has shaped up in the U.S. school teachers’ community.
81· MoorNam said
One concern I would have in adopting your relativist stance about Huckabee’s belief that the world is 10,000 years old, in the face of a hundred years of scientific inquiry and empirical evidence, is the classic slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Are you ok with Huckabee asking wives to “submit graciously to the servant leadership of their husbands?” How about his view that “homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk”? Would his position on choice, Guantanamo or divine intervention in politics still make Huckabee alright with you?
In this context I think his position on evolution is a sign of bigger things to come, in much the same way dubyah went from a semi-religious, good ol’ Texan AA member, to full-on voices-from-heaven follower of the word of god. A rerun would, I think, be a true disservice to this country and its constitution, never mind the world.
That should have been –
See this for the National Science Teachers’ Association’s position on evolution, and this for dialog on how teaching evolution has shaped up in the U.S. school teachers’ community.
I don’t see how that’s the same as demanding that creationism is accorded the same credibility as science?? I find the analogy ridiculous; what is necessarily more ‘false, phony and fake’ about the Mahabharata than about the story of Jonah and the whale? I’m very aware that Hinduism isn’t a religion in the sense that Christianity and Islam are, but when you refer to one tradition as ‘mythology’ and the other as ‘theology’ there is a connotation that the latter is somehow intrinsically more believable. It’s not about wanting Hinduism to be thought of as a religion along the lines of Christianity/Islam, but about having it not dismissed as ‘mythology’ in comparison to the superior Christian/Muslim ‘theology.’
?? Except religions/traditions change, and I don’t see a need to keep them around if I don’t see the meaning behind them. It’s even sillier to partake blindly of tradition without understanding what the ‘corny belief system’ behind it is, IMO.
Nala, I’m sorry, like most Hindus you are so in the bubble that you just don’t get it. Perhaps this quote might help.
Quote:
This whole insistence on the Bible being literal reminds me of something a Buddhist friend told me, about an elderly Buddhist priest/scholar at the place she works (in Japan, one of the mainstream Buddhist sects) who was teaching some would-be Buddhist priests from various countries, here for training. There were a lot of Americans in the class, and one day as he was teaching some story about Buddha’s life, one of the trainees raised his hand and wanted to know whether the story they were being taught was true.
The scholar hesitated, and asked, “What do you mean by ‘true’? It teaches something valuable about compassion, and in that way it is true.” The trainee said, “But it contradicts the story you taught us yesterday. They can’t both be true. Do we have to believe both, to be good Buddhists?”
“Oh, you mean factual,” said the scholar. “Of course it isn’t factual. Why would you think that? It’s a teaching story. It is not supposed to be fact. I am not teaching you history. It would be absurd to insist that you believe it as fact. It would be like… like… like saying that Christians have to believe that the Bible is factually true to be good Christians! Ha ha ha!” He laughed and laughed and laughed at the idea. Then he noticed that his audience was not laughing. His questioner said, “But many Christians say you DO have to believe that the Bible is factual.”
After that the lecture turned into a question and answer session. The scholar simply wouldn’t believe it at first. He thought his audience was making it up, or had misunderstood something. Living in his scholarly bubble he had managed to read the Bible and study something about Christianity but completely miss the whole Bible-as-literal-fact thing. When his audience had convinced him that it was true, he wanted to know how such an absurd situation had came about. He couldn’t understand at all how people could make such a fundamental mistake as confusing historical fact with religious myth. To him it was a completely new and absurd idea.
End Quote
Aside from being totally clueless about the depth of this belief thing in Christianity, you are also insulting Christians by making their truth equivalent to your mythology. Just as I feel insulted when hindu mythology is represented as the truth by Christians in their attempt to be equally respectful.
Divya- I don’t think Hindu ‘myths’ are equivalent to Christian ‘parables,’ because I don’t interpret things literally nor do I care if they are factually true. I understand your point that Hindu myths were never intended to be taken literally, but that’s a function of the lack of proselytizing spirit in Hinduism (as well as other factors, I’m sure). Also, I’m sure there are many Christians who don’t believe in the Bible literally but who still hold the values they glean from it, unlike in your story. I would prefer that people recognize that all religions are false and socially constructed, but since schools try to provide a balanced viewpoint I just ask that they do the same for Hinduism. In the modern context, it matters to have a belief system and not just blindly follow traditions. I’m guessing we won’t reach any agreement on this point though, so I’m stepping out now.
My whole point is that there cannot be a balanced viewpoint if you lump hinduism along with religion.
I’m not sure what you mean by a belief system. Geography, physics, astronomy? To be kind and courageous? What happens to us when we die? All of these answers can be sought and obtained without religion. And you can have tradition on top of that since it serves a completely different purpose.
91 · Divya said
Indeed, there are times when even “progressives” like me must lie prone in the face of tradition.
i’m dbd, grew up hindu, living in dc i thought the cartoon was clever made me laugh (esp. the second, ‘sati’ frame!)
i am definitely not offended most hindus won’t be. proof? assuming we had a similar political system any current day pres. candidate in india who believes in sati, untouchability, sagar mathan and appeasing gods during a national crisis could never win a single state primary, even in a ‘bimaru‘ state
(if he could even come up that far any party’s ranks, including the BJP!)
hick’s rise seems that much more disturbing!!
I think this may be straying off topic, but I think the issue of whether or not Hinduism is a religion needs to be addressed. Here’s how dictionary.com defines religion (let’s see if this blockquote feature works on my browser):
<
p>
I think Hinduism qualifies as a religion under most, if not all, of the aforementioned definitions. This also seems to be the view of most academics in the comparative religions class. The matrix in which Hinduism operates may be different from that of the Abrahamic religions but it is a religion. Whether or not adherents accept literally some or all of the stories doesn’t seem to be relevant as to whether Hinduism is a religion (just as whether or not people believe that the world is 10,000 years old doesn’t make them a Christian). Moreover there are a number of Hindus that do in fact believe in the existence of certain avatars and believe that they were divine. Wishing it away doesn’t make it so.
The point is not whether Hindu stories are true or untrue, the point is that they are as valid as the Abrahamic stories. That is, if you are going to accord Abrahamic stories a certain status, the same status needs to be accorded to the Hindu stories. Both have about the same levels of evidence. So yes, for example, it is worth pointing out the hyprocrisy in calling Hindu stories “myths” and Christian stories “beliefs” (and there are many Christians who also see their stories as symbolic rather than literal). It is worth pointing out that rakshasas are no more or less strange an idea than angels.
Moreover many Hindus do not just blindly follow tradition as a “lifestyle” choice, but perform rites etc. on an understanding that there is some divine purpose or aspect to such rites or actions. To say that Hinduism was never conceived of as a religion, I’m not sure what authority supports that assertion. Sure, it was never conceived as a religion bound by a specific, unchanging, one size fits all written canon of obligations, rights and viewpoints, but otherwise, yeah it pretty much hits the religion nail squarely on the head.
By accepting a lesser status, there is an implicit argument that it’s okay to pick on Hinduism, because it’s of inferior quality to the “real” religions–you know the ones where there is “true” belief, as opposed to quaint “myths”. It gives support to the Huckabees and their ilk to explain that they should be afforded respect for their beliefs, but people of the pagan, heathen, capital G-Godless should not. And I think that leads to a logical conclusion that Hindus should be afforded less respect in all aspects, because their views don’t mean as much or aren’t worth as much. If following that approach makes me a fundamentalist, then let me be the first to line up for my “Fundie ’08” yoga pants.
Help. This could only have been written by a hindu. I’ve known hindus who’ve spent 40 years among Christians and are still clueless about the difference. Just because nobody spent any time drumming religion into the hindu brain, they think it’s some sort of casual, do what you will, affair. The point is that the Abrahamic traditions do not identify their stuff as stories. Who the hell is a hindu to go about calling them stories? On the other hand to call the hindu stories real is beyond absurd, in addition to not being what hindus themselves do. It is also irrelevant to state that many xtians see their stories symbolically. Christianity is an organized religion. This means that they have it together enough that there is an official way it is represented in schools, universities, the media, encyclopedias, the government, the military, etc. It makes no difference if some half-baked athiest of a nominal christian sits in his armchair and makes a few comments about how their belief is not literal. Show me one quote from the NYT, PBS or even NPR that refers to the jesus or mohammad story as a myth and I’ll take back my entire rant. The “truth” of Christianty is a given. That’s how it has been presented for 2000 years and that’s why you have people making fun of the virgin birth etc. Nobody in India makes fun of the hindu stories because nobody goes around believing them to be true. Only in the west are Indian stories ridiculed because the western world simply assumes that the hindus must be going about believing all that nonsense just because they’re required to believe nonsense. Now with the rise of hindu fundamentalism the truth of hindu stories has become an issue. As I said, my idea of a hindu fundamentalist is one who insists on the truth of myths.
The Abrahamic religions are staunchly anti-pagan. If you are a Hindu, by default your religion is inferior since you are a worshipper of false gods. It most definitely is already the case that pagan religions do not have the same respect as the Abrahamic ones. You’re in that same old hindu bubble and cannot see it because hindus are pretty much indifferent to these things. To be fair, Christians are not very forgiving of their own schisms and the most prolific anti-christian literature is to be found within their own traditions. But this also indicates how important it is for them to have the right understanding of God. That right understanding does not indclude the half mad pagan gods.
90 · nala said
Curious how you’re defining false here since the context of religions are that they are ‘socially constructed’.
It’s like two groups of people outdoors one day, one group says we feel cold in the sun today and the other says the sun is warm on our faces. Neither is false since it’s just of people collectively deciding to be subjective.
Define a Christian as one whose belief is literal, and a Hindu as one whose belief isn’t, and you’re exactly right. Humpty Dumpty was right after all.
89 · Divya said
Ramayana is “truth” to hindus. That’s why there is a controversy about Adam’s bridge or Rama’s bridge. Mahabharatha and hence, Bhagavad Gita is also “truth”. Hindus do believe in Mathura and Kurukshetra. If Vishnu, Garuda and churning the milk ocean was only mythology and wasn’t literally believed, why is such a rush to Kumbhamela? Hindus do literally believe their “mythologies” and then ACT on them too. There won’t be visiting “holy” places (considering the amount of religious tourism present in India),if majority hindus didn’t literally believed in physical presence of divine.
Others have pointed why Hinduism is a religion and isn’t just a tradition. May be Hinduism if split into Vaishnivism, Shaivism, Skatism etc could become similar in construct to Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc (not necessarily in that order :)). But that doesn’t mean it is just a collection of myths.
About the Cartoon: [cynical mode] If hindu fundies actively support SATI, why is there any mistreatment of widows at any time (“Water” by D.Mehta)? Surely, they could have easily burned all the widows instead of leaving them destitute? If Hinduism needs to be potrayed as nuts, I demand it must be done logically and consistently. Either Hinduism wants the widows to be burned or not. How can it be both ways? [end cynical mode]
95 · Divya
I think you’re missing a big point in the differences between these religions. Hinduism is in sense a evolutionary spirituality style religion. You can evolve or become more than you are either thru actions or prayers, etc…it is up to you. Christianity isn’t sold that way at all. In that religion you’ve got to follow the letter of the law to get into heaven.
The difference in religions is all in the marketing.
Hinduism is user friendly. If you don’t attain perfection in this life, no problem, there’s always a future one. Islam and Christianity give you one life, right? Though ancient Judaism had the concept of transmigration of the soul, I wonder how the two religions springing from it – Christianity and Islam missed that point???
I didn’t get the 3rd box of the cartoon about weight loss skill, human waste and untouchable. Does it have something to do with cleaning out his intestines?