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?
Not fair because it was the isms I was talking about. You cannot simply disregard the entire bit about how xtianty is officially represented and only talk about how some xtians talk about it. And Hindus who are currently fighting about the truth of Adam’s bridge would qualify as fundamentalists by my definition.
Why the quotes around truth then? And if you claim that the mahabharata is the truth that can only mean you haven’t ever read it. Unless by truth you do not mean the factual truth in which case you are agreeing with me.
95 · Divya said
Don’t you mean Constantine was powerful enough to have a council and make Christianity official? If only Adi Shankara had such power, all hindus would have their Pope in Shankaracharya Matts. Or perhaps if most of the official versions weren’t burnt, killed (yes, oral) or mocked for over a 1000 years, Hinduism might have had an official version instead of a scattered version.
Curious to know if a religion is a “true” religion only if it carries political power and an “official” version.
[Too much OT this one. I will bow out of this discussion now.]
That was a limited cultural (and most likely financial) practice, located in very few areas of India, two that I know of, Bengal and Rajasthan.
The numbers of satis were a small minority, though even one was one too many.
However, it was not widely practiced by the majority of people either in Bengal or Rajasthan, what to speak of all across India. Nowhere in Mahabharat, Ramayan, Gita, Bhagavat Purana, or any of the yoga shastras or tantras will you see an order for wives burn themselves in funeral pyres.
Sati means “chaste”. A woman who is loyal and chaste to her husband is called “sati”.
Too simplistic argument again… Doesn’t mean that every Hindu who celebrates Diwali celebrates it because it of some mytholgical reasons. According to Hindusims there are different levels of spirtualism in a human being and depending on that one can choose to be religious/spiritual in whatever way ( something akin to different branches of Yoga ). As reg. Hindu mythologies/stories a better comparison would be Greek and Roman mythologies instead of beliefs of monotheistic religions. Again it would be better categorize social evil, religious superstitions, rituals, culture, spritualism, philosphy etc. etc. Hinduism is too complicated.
Some things we take literally, some things as allegory, and somethings both. Even shastra distinguishes.
But the whole beauty of it is that there is no official version. If, as you hope, Shankara had gone around and established an official religion, then only those people who are interested in advaita vendanta would have a path to follow. In effect, your wish is that there be only one way to happiness. How about all of the others who never practice any form of yoga? The claim of the indian traditions is that everyone can find happiness by following a set of practices. These practices may be simple home rituals, devotion to some particular deity, just following one’s duty, or work, going on pilgrimages, contemplating the epics, meditation, chanting, going to their local gurus, whatever. Only a miniscule percentage of people are drawn to heavy philosophy or experimental practices. I don’t think it will do to equate hinduism with vedanta. This type of thinking is just another legacy of the indologists (and has been around just for a couple of hundred years).
Oh yeah, and different traditions or schools of thought (sampradayas) within the large umbrella of Hinduism, all have differing interpretations of the same myths. The myths mean different things to different sampradayas depending on their emphasis. Hinduism is not one big monolithic religion at all, but an umbrella term for many, many, MANY different belief systems.
Thank Goddess Shankar did NOT do that!
The dwaita-vadis, vaishistadwaita-vadis, dwait-adwaitavadis and achinya-bhed-abhedavadis would NOT want adwaitavada to be the “only path to God”. In fact, adwaidavada does not even have as clear a definition of “god” as some of these other vadas. In fact, adwaitavada is the exact OPPOSITE of dwaitavada. It would never have worked.
All the four major Vaishnava sampradayas have their official commentaries on the Brahma Sutra (Vedanta Sutra), but their conclusions are very different from Shankaracharyas.
99 · lion said
That is so not true – many Christian sects (paging the resident expert on Christian theology) employ the concept of grace with respect to salvation (especially Calvinists, Lutherans, and to some extent, Methodists, and of course, the original sin tainted Catholics). In fact, this is concept is explained very lucidly in Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (otherwise a delightfully kooky piece of analysis). Further explanation from the fount of all knowledge:
In fact, humans err, when they assume out of their pride, that it is their good works or sincerity in belief that grants them a place in heaven:
Although some sects try to work around this and say that one should try and behave like God has bestowed his grace on you. How would such a person behave? Go to church, be charitable, and try to conform to Biblical injunctions.
Still, though, regardless of how sinful you might be, ask sincerely for forgiveness, and God will forgive you. Hell, (S)He might even make you President of the USA. And even tell you what to do next.
So Lion, no, sometimes all it takes to go heaven is swallow (your pride, that is), and say sorry 🙂 Easy as pie, right? Even lil’ Dubya can do it.
Meanwhile, some would have Hindus pay their dues. And those of their forefathers.
I wish Jyotsana was here to talk more about this.
YES!
And you see quite an openness mind and body amongst the western youth who were born and raised in Hindu yoga communities in the western world. Yogaville offspring, ISKCON offspring, Osholand offspring (well they were open to begin with), but there are a handful of quite conservative Hindu communes and communities dotted across the west wherein the western converts jumped on the fundamentalist bandwagon but their children who were born into it ended up being quite well balanced, with more western sensibilities than their parents (who are more often than not western themselves), but with a strong sense of connection with their religious heritage and community. Basically they let go of all the sexual taboos and emphasis on celibacy, which when you get down to it, is the main taboo of any major religion.
101 · Divya said
Just to clarify, I meant factual truth. I differentiate this from absolute truth (sorry,I can’t easily define my personal absolute truth for others) by quotes.
I know my Ramayana and Mahabharatha. There is archeological evidence on existence of Mathura. Thanks.
To Bridget Jones: I understand my argument is simplistic, but a personal belief is what it is. Not all people who celebrate Christmas believe in birth of Christ on that particular day either (some may not even be christians by their own definition). But by considering the number of people involved, it could still be inferred that enough people believe in it to make effort. Hinduism is a living religion (though a complicated one),which implies there are living people who still believe that Rama and Krishna existed on this earth as factual truths.
Roman/Greek Paganism isn’t being practised now. So, how can an existing belief system be compared to those mythologies?
[Sorry moderators; no more OT from me :)]
This is akin to the Pushti Marg, the path of nourishment (also loosely translated as grace).
Mercy, grace, blessings from on high are the emphasis in the Vaishnava Sampradayas.
Nobody pays for the sins of their forefathers once you start on the path of devotion (bhakti). Rather, even one’s forefathers benefit from an offspring taking to the path of bhakti!!! — with no separate endeavor, it just automatically happens. Such is the grace of the MOST HIGH.
Meera lives in Mathura district, Uttar Pradesh. I can vouch for the fact that the town exists. Need my zipcode>
Excellent points!
I’ve been to Mathura myself, have driven past Kurukshetra, love going to pilgrimage spots and earnestly listen to all the lore that is dished out about them. In a 5,000 year history, there’s bound to have been wars, maha-wars, heroes and super-heroes. In general, superheroes and wars inspire a lot of art and literature. So sure, there likely was a Krishna who grew up in Mathura. But it is not particularly important to the philosophy or practice. Just as it is not important that Newton ever existed as long as we have his laws and know how to apply them. Now there’s this whole bhakti path where a particular god is important to some people, but even then I’d never ever heard anyone in India talk about the true existence of their god. This is a very recent phenomenon and is most definitely a result of the rise of hindu fundamentalism.
Suggested reading;
The medieval Vaishnava commentaries on the Bhagavat Purana, as well as medieval literature and biographical work on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It is not a recent phenomenon nor is it the rise of Hindu fundamentalism. Heck, just take a trip back to Mathura/Vrindavan, get out of your taxi and talk to some of the devout there (or any random person). Many of them are not even literate nor do they keep up with the rises and falls in the Hindu fundamental world.
Perhaps what you meant to say is that you never heard anyone in India say that their god or path is superior to anyone else’s???
Vaishnavas do assert that their Beloved Lord exists. The whole culture of Vrindavan/Mathura is built around that sambandha.
If people didn’t believe in the true existence of their god, why would they perform pujas and lavish fruits, sweets, etc. on statues/symbols of the deities? Why would anyone give milk to Ganesha on Vinayaka Chaturthi? Even if they can’t prove its existence or if they don’t even believe it’s literally true, it’s true for them and has meaning to them. If the definition of ‘Hindu’ is ever-changing, why can’t it change in this way too (assuming that it was different before)? IMO it’s not fundamentalist as long as they’re not forcing it on anyone and they’re not harming anyone.
For once I’m glad for Pardesi Gori’s participation in a thread. Thank you, PG.
110 · portmanteau said
Actually you’re proving my point Portmanteau if you think about it. 🙂
53 · SM Intern said
Ok, Mr or Ms. SM Intern, Please spare me the crap. You are not fooling any one, by saying that you are a non partisan organization. I have not exactly seen endearing articles about republicans, lately. I do not mind people expressing their partisan views. But what I do despise is blatantly coming up with partisan articles and then claiming to be non partisan.
I didn’t mean to make it sound as simplistic as it probably came across. It’s complicated. I think belief in god is sort of hard-wired in humans. It probably has something to do with fear. So yes, people do believe in their gods. But in the entity called hinduism this belief is not emphasized by an ism, nor by parents, or gurus. It’s just one among many things, such as keeping fasts or doing a ritual. One way to tell that belief is not so important is to notice that there are multiple beliefs about the same thing, often contradictory. This could be just to emphasize a point. Every stotra that you read claims that it is the most efficious of all, and that its deity is the best of all. Hindus will chant one stotra on a Monday and the next on a Tuesday and so on. The same hindu chants shiva is the best one day and saraswati is the greatest the next day. Now are they all complete idiots, or could it be that belief is less important to them than attitude, whether or not they pay lip service to belief?
In any case, when in doubt it’s good to talk about yourself and not just random hindus. Do you really believe there’s a shiva sitting up there in the sky? I’m asking because I never gave a thought to any of this until I came to the US. One day I was asked if I belived in Shiva and to me that was bizarre question. No hindu would ask me that. I didn’t know whether to say yes or no. Both answers seemed wrong. So whatever it is that I hold about shiva, it is not a belief. At least not in the same sense of the word that the Abrahamic religions use. If most hindus want to settle for some cock-eyed translation scheme, I hope that wont stop others from continuing to try and figure out ways to come to a better understanding of their traditions.
Divya:
I won’t make statements that are not based on facts. Probably you are not aware of DK/DMK in Tamilnadu. Recently, the chief minister of Tamilnadu ridiculed Lord Rama on the Ramsetu controversy in a few public meetings. I grew up reading virulent attacks on Hindu gods/ goddesses / rituals, I guess even the most virulent attacks on Hinduism by Christians would pale in comparison. I have given this link before. Even now for fun, I read those. For people who know Tamil, goto this website, a daily newspaper of the DK, http://www.viduthalai.com link
Generally, I’m amused by the discussions on Hinduism. It reminds me of the story of a few blind men describing an elephant to one another. I’ve come to the conclusion that no one knows what is Hinduism. :-).
123 · Ponniyin Selvan Generally, I’m amused by the discussions on Hinduism. It reminds me of the story of a few blind men describing an elephant to one another. I’ve come to the conclusion that no one knows what is Hinduism. :-).
It’s about bringing your dog along for the walk in the woods.
Should I be offended by something as fleeting as Rall’s cartoon? If so, then perhaps I won’t vote for Hillary, since that would signal Kali Yuga…
😉
Divyaji, you are not giving a complete nor thoroughly educated (about the various sampradayas) analysis here.
People who fast and chant for Shiva one day and Saraswati (or whoever) the next, well, perhaps they are pancha-upasaks (worshippers of five major deities). Or they are bascially following something that their parents did, or neighbors or whatever, like a “folk religion” of sorts. But people who actually take diksha into a mantra in a certain line, well they will not mix up like that, it is not at all recommended, it is contrary. They are very fixed in one isht-deva only. These are “sampradayikas”, members of a sampradaya, particular school of thought. All things (gods) are not all mix and match in India. This is a very wrong impression to give to people. Yes, many people in India DO mix and match, and there may be nothing wrong with that (I’m not giving a value judgement here), but it does not speak for the millions of people who follow particular lines of thought, particular shastras (scriptures) at the exclusion of all others, and particular sadhanas meant for the worship of one particular isht.
And they do these things because they “believe” in all of it.
What? A sign of Kali Yuga is that women will be given power???
I know next to nothing about DK/DMK but did hear about some insult to Rama by the CM of TN. You didn’t specify the context of the rest of the insults. In any case all of this sounds like politics. Sticking to religion, you fnd atheist christians ridicule the virgin birth because they know it is held to be true. You do not hear atheist hindus making fun of Shiva’s three eyes because even the believers don’t take it literally. Unless they do now?
Meera – I am acutely aware that there exist some rigid sampradyas (schools of thought/tradition). There also exist some not so rigid ones. And many in between. So you would also set a wrong impression if you claim that mixing and matching is not allowed.
121 · Buddy said
What is relevant is whether an issue or story is compelling, not whether it fills some bullshit quota for parity. When a GOP candidate does something positive which is relevant to this site, I’m sure there will be a post up. SM has had negative posts about Obama and Clinton, yet in those threads, you don’t see Democrats whining about how this blog is so partisan. Spare you? Spare all of us.
Pondatti for President!!!! In 2008, he?(she) will deliver us from the tyranny of the troll!
Which of us doesn’t fondly remember the Bala Vihar classes where we all chanted the scriptures about the tricameral forms of government and the immorality of squatting?
But schools of thought in Christianity are not allowed similar leeway, and are considered authentic only if they believe in literalism?
Heh.
Don’t you see, Brahma = courts, Shiva = police, Vishnu = the defence?
property rights = artha.
Flordian, did you go to South Florida for the culture? You were misinformed. But, of all the plebeian places in all the towns in all the world, I’d walk into yours. Y’know, so that we’d always have South Florida.
Interesting explanation, and far more charitable than mine. I’d chalked it up mainly to a combination of safe choices and ignorance, but given what khoofia also says about his 9/11 ouevre, maybe you’re right.
Given that the word means “wife” in Tamil, unless Pondatti is from Massachusetts, I am assuming it’s a “she”. Of course, if I am wrong, that will make for quite the election in 2008 – choosing between a woman, a black man, and a Desi gay man. “You know, they said this day would never come.”
106 · Divya said
I am sorry my comments weren’t clear. I was proposing exactly opposite to vedanta thought.
Catholicism is not Christianity. But Constantine and Council of Nicaea are responsible for having an official version of Christianity, final version of Bible, the Holy Trinity and regulation of religion after that. There are several denominations of Christianity but Catholicism took up the task of keeping it official (or powerful?).
Similarly, Aadi Shankara reformed Hinduism and established Panchayatana puja, ie, praying to Ganesha-Shiva-Vishnu-Sakthi-Surya, established the peetas etc. So, he established the major acceptable forms to pray. Today 95% of hindus worship one or other forms of these Gods (apart from Muruga/Karthikeya I don’t see who else falls outside these categories – I am willing to be educated if there is still major worship of Indra,Varuna etc). So, irrespective of high-brow Vedanta, Advaitha philosophy,(primarily to counteract Buddhism, Jainism) common folk would still pray to one or all of these Gods with the usual ritual, puranas, pilgrimage surrounding these Gods. There could still be several schools of thoughts/sampradaya (denominations if I may say), but we would have an official version with five Gods. The peetas would be authoritative enough to promote or denounce literal God.
Alas, if only Aadi Shankara lived long enough to be exposed to Islam and Christianity, we would have a well articulated official position centuries ago instead of all hindu fundies, indologists and ignorant people like me trying to explain Hinduism.
About Cartoon: I am wondering why four elephants,turtle and cobra? Give me the good old cosmic egg. Is cartoonist lazy to confuse between catfish-earthquakes (I mean the Japanese myth that the gaint catfish supporting the earth and causing earthquakes*) with cobra-earthquakes?
*As far as I know, there is no Japanese religion considering catfish as primary deity.So, I called it a myth :).
Well, the context is from your statement that I quoted.
And this is not just politics. DMK is a political party (an offshoot of the DK) while DK is a non-political party calls itself a movement of social reform and has been in existence for more than 50-60 years. They make fun of Hindu stories exactly because they think that many Hindus believe those stories to be true. And many Hindus do think the stories as true. Otherwise we won’t see people waiting in line for hourse to have their heads tonsured in Tirupati.
Rall, of whom I am a big fan, has used this method before to make a point using Zoroastrianism:
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/43175 http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/2005/03/26/
I don’t find them offensive, even though none of the Zoroastrians I have ever known look or dress like the people in his cartoons, nor am I aware that there even are “fundamentalist Zoroastrians” but I think the cartoons are effective at pointing out the extremism of some positions.
137 · Golfastrian said
My relatives in India live in what traditionally has been a Parsi neighborhood. I’ve seen Parsi men wearing those white topis. The women in the cartoon seems to be wearing a Parsi-sari draped in the Guju style. And the guy in the 2nd cartoon looks like a typical Parsi priest with the white beard and white outfit.
I think Rall did a pretty good job capturing the idiosyncrasies of that community’s way of dressing (though he is presenting caricatures).
Most Americans are used to Christian fundamentalists trying to inject religion into politics and they’ve become inured to it. Rall uses religions that most Americans find exotic to demonstrate how absurd non-believers find religion-based politics. IE there really is no difference between Jesus-based politics and Zarathustra-based politics.
Psst. Murali. Look one post above mine. He did just that.
My thoughts on this:
-Huckabee cartoon not particularly informed, offensive or funny
-“A Guide to Zoroastrian America” = pretty funny
-Rall recycles himself
-Recycled Rall will always be funnier than Mallard Fillmore
-Mallard Fillmore sucks
Whoops. Two posts above mine.
Dictionary.com defines myth as:
Divya, I trust you’ll accept that lexicographers try to ascribe generally accepted definitions rather than impose their own “if wishes were kings” desires to a word (Samuel Johnson excepted). Clearly Hindu stories qualify under 1,2,4 and 5 and possibly 3. The point is, so do the stories of Abrahamic religions. Your reasoning that because the media here does not expressly treat the stories as myth they must not be is tautological. Both meet the definitions above, just as both Hinduism and Abrahamic traditions meet the definitions of religion. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt as there is in how Ganesha got his head (oooohh, drrrty ;)).
Neither the Bible, nor the Ramayana state that their contents are merely stories–both take a reportage approach. And in both religious traditions there are people who view the stories as symbolic (seriously, ask 20 Episcopalians if they believe that the earth was literally created in 7 24 hour days–I have, and got a nice explanation from the parish priest of how the story was intended to be symbolic, with much nodding by the members of the congregation who were present) and those who believe them to be true. And as Hinduism has gained a foothold and as these matters are pointed out, the secular mainstream media in North America that discusses the birth of Christ at Christmas is making more of an effort to remove the “mythical” from Rama when discussing Diwali (it’s not perfect and there will always be holdouts but there has been a marked change).
I agree that Hinduism has a greater scope of stories and beliefs and a greater tolerance for allowing people to choose from amongst those beliefs (and I like the analogy of the blind men and the elephant). I also agree that certain beliefs that were widely held by early adherents (e.g. Indra and Agni as the primary deities) are no longer believed by the majority of adherents today. That in no way lessens its qualifications as a religion based on the definitions above, nor does it lend greater validity to the stories of the those religious traditions with less of a margin of tolerance. And thus, in an ostensibly secular society, Hinduism is worthy of equal respect in the public sphere (which would likely be zero respect to an atheist) as the Abrhamic religions, regardless of what the adherents of those religions believe. Which is why (wrenching the steering wheel to bring matters back on topic) I do not find the cartoon offensive, but I still believe it is ill-informed.
If wishes were kings beggars would ride, and I think you’re straying into mendicant territory by rejecting other people’s evidence and anecdotes in favour of your own general sweeping statements (‘nobody”, “everybody”) without evidence (speaking of myths) and with abundant condescension about how anyone who disagrees with you lives in a bubble and how you are the only one who truly “gets” how Christians and Christianity work (really, even more so than the other folks who grew up here?). Regardless, by your definition, I’m apparently a Hindu fundamentalist, and, considering the source, I’m comfortable with that. Ram Ji ki Jai 😉
To explain further, The issue is both political and religious. “Rama Sethu” is a bridge thought of by Hindus to have been constructed by Lord Rama when he crossed from the southern end of India (i.e Tamilnadu) to Sri lanka to get his ‘abducted wife’ back. This is from the “story of Ramayana”. When the government decided to demolish the bridge, many Hindus were offended and recently there was a meeting in Delhi where close to a million people (I guess Hindus) denounced the scheme. Offended by the opposition, the “atheist” CM of Karunanidhi ridiculed the beliefs of the Hindus and said to Hindus “Ramayana is a myth, don’t believe it to be true”.
Your claim is that Hindus do not believe their stories to be true and “Hindu atheists” don’t attack the Hindus on such premise. But the ground facts (as I mentioned above) speak otherwise and contradicts both your positions. I don’t deny that there will be seven other people who share your beliefs about Hinduism. Again this reminds me of the story of blind men and the elephant. 🙂
Also, I’ve done the Abrahamic religions a disservice. Of course Episcopalians couldn’t believe the earth was created in 7 24 hour days. Genesis says the universe and everything in it, other than God of course, was created in six consecutive days (the earth was created in one and subsequently populated). Mea culpa 🙂
Treating these two concepts as analogous is entirely false. This is one of the most misleading and frustrating aspects about the “evolution debate” — Evolution and Creationism are NOT equivalent or analogous theories. One is based on a scientific method which can, through observation, time, and analysis, be either proven or disproven. The other is a set of beliefs which can never be tested.
I think it does everyone a disservice to pretend they’re the same, and I also think arguing that “only Creationism” exists promotes a pro-ignorance agenda in the U.S. Mike Huckabee is entitled to his opinion, but I think it is foreboding and problematic for the president of the U.S. to be so anti-learning that s/he would dismiss evolution entirely. Further, I know plenty of very religious people who believe in an idea of Creationism (God created the world) and evolution — the two beliefs are not incompatible. [e.g., who says that evolution is not a process promoted by God? Maybe He did create the world in 6 days, but who knows what a day is to God? 10000 years? 2 million?]. razib, I am perfectly content with saying that half the country is composed of a lunatic fringe, which is fueled in no small part by the rabid anti-learning and anti-science lobbies that exist across the public, private, and home-schooled education systems in many parts of this country.
I do think the man is funny, though. I like him, even if I wouldn’t want him as my president. I like feeling that way about presidential candidates as opposed to being irked by someone.
Divya, I think your arguments re: Abrahamanic vs. Hindu traditions/interpretations don’t make sense, in large part because you keep evaluating Hinduism from the position of the Abrahamanic religions (couldn’t it be argued that you are making your claims from within the confines of a “Abrahamanic bubble”?). I don’t think the objections to your analysis are evidence of a “Hindu bubble,” but rather, are evidence of a thoughtful attempt to discern difference and meaning/context if you use the same criteria to judge all faiths instead of trying to create a ladder-ranking system of religions (in that term I include Hinduism).
I don’t think the cartoon is funny, but mostly because it fails its punchlines by being inaccurate. I think the choice of Hinduism may have been to get people to think “outside of the box” by using something “exotic” or “unknown” to mainstream Americans to get them to see how wacky the same positions would sound if a person were Christian. The problem is that Rall didn’t pick sufficiently accurate or wacky arguments made by fundamentalist Hindus (what does that even mean?). Also, I seriously wonder about the definitions/conflations between “fundamentalism” and the use of extreme literal interpretations to create a state and system that promotes those ideas (the latter being the “trigger” behind a lot of fundamentalist religious political action/movements). Was he aiming for the latter? I get the sense that he wasn’t, but I think the two have become so intertwined in today’s mainstream consciousness that it won’t make as much sense to others.
I think the choice of Hinduism may have been to get people to think “outside of the box” by using something “exotic” or “unknown” to mainstream Americans to get them to see how wacky the same positions would sound if a person were Christian.
Exactly. This is akin to the “black bush” skit on the chappelle show. Get white people to see how silly and idiotic Bush is by reframing him in an exaggerated interpretation of black culture. Only difference is, the caricature is made by someone within that ethnic group.. not so here.
eloquent, ente.
Divya, many Christians do mistake truths for fact, but not all as ente has pointed out. Have you ever heard of Christian Mysticism? quote: In Christian mysticism biblical texts are typically interpreted metaphorically.
HarlemSun #74 – thanks and yowza. A newly-minted Harris poll revealed more on the rejection of evolution among American Christians, and you were right, my 40-50% figure was vastly understated:
Yet Christians are far from a homogenous group and a break-up of respondents based on Christian traditions shows discrepancies in their level of belief.
Born-again Christians, for example, are more likely to believe in miracles (95 percent) as compared to Catholics (87 percent) and Protestants (89 percent), according to the poll.
On the other hand, only 16 percent of born-again Christians believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants.
Interestingly, more born-again Christians – a term usually referring to evangelical Protestants – believe in witches (37 percent) than mainline Protestants or Catholics, both at 32 percent, according to Reuters.
Clearly, Huckabee’s views are “normalized” for the society in which he lives.
Everything does not have to be the same in the same way (if that makes sense). For example, I had a similar problem on the Urdu thread where the idea essentially seemed to be that all languages are the same. For a believing Christian there is not much leeway or there would not be any point being a Christian. You cannot say you are a xtian but that you don’t believe in Jesus or the Bible. Every school of thought in Christianity believes in Jesus. So different things come into play when you compare hinduism and xtianty and the various schools of xtianty between themselves.
Yes. It’s like if we’re having a conversation about tigers you produce a baby kitten as evidence just because it belongs to the same species.
Actually, the vedic rituals centre around Indra, Varuna, Agni etc. so yes, a majority of Hindus end up invoking them when dealing with deaths, marriages, and other life-cycle type things. Even here, tribals and some other groups have their own life cycle rituals which I doubt are vedic – but if not vedic they most definitely are also not anything Shankara prescribed. I also do not agree that 95% of hindus do any particular thing. I never heard of the Panchayatana puja until yesterday (although I read/listen to the saundarya lahiri)
This, I suppose is the basic predicament. Hindus want so desperately to fit into the Abrahamic model. Sad.
You cannot say you are a xtian but that you don’t believe in Jesus or the Bible. Every school of thought in Christianity believes in Jesus.
So whats your point? the term “hindu” is somewhat of a colonial one anyway, for example, you cannot say you are a srivaishnava but disbelieve in Ramanuja sampradaya. You cannot say you are a Shaiva but don’t believe in Shiva as the supreme. You cannot believe yourself to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava and say you don’t believe in Krishna. So I don’t see your point.
Yes. It’s like if we’re having a conversation about tigers you produce a baby kitten as evidence just because it belongs to the same species.
In fact, the early Christians were all about symbolic ritual. So it’s like we’re talking about tigers, and someone produces a Trinil Tiger as evidence.