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?
Damn! you got me there. I was attempting to point out that Christianity isn’t only defined by those xtians who take the book literally. There are other schools of thought within the religion/myth.
Many believe he existed but that the story of his life is to be understood metaphorically.
Kittens anyone?
The bubble I’m talking about is the tendency of hindus to be blind to the desired feeling of separation that exists between the Abrahamic religions and paganism. If a certain religion teaches that idol-worship is wrong, it is awfully deluded of hindus to imagine that idol-worship is considered respect worthy (or should be).
All of these things sound good in theory, but pray tell me what same criteria do you have in mind?
If a certain religion teaches that idol-worship is wrong, it is awfully deluded of hindus to imagine that idol-worship is considered respect worthy (or should be).
You mean within that religion? or in general?
what hindus think that christians find idol worship respect-worthy (at least now, not earlier)?
The general tone of my opponents is that all religions are respect worthy. This is logically and emotionally not possible from within religions.
from within religions
Abrahamic religions. One can reconcile belief in one’s own religion and still respect the beliefs of others even if it stands in contravention of one’s own belief, Xtians, et al, in general just don’t do that.
Shiva, Shakti (Devi, Kali Ma) and Krishna (or any other avatar of Vishnu) are the three most popular worshippable deities in India.
Never said mixing and matching is not allowed. There’s alot of it. But there is also alot of Hindus that do not mix and match. For instance, in Vaishnava tradition some other gods are worshipped on occasion, but as angels, or demigods, servants of Krishna or Narayan. Food will first be offered to the deity of Krishna in the temple, then that prasad will be offered to the demigod. It is forbidden in Vaishnava sampradayas to worship demigods as equal or superior to Krishna or Vishnu.
If Ganesh is worshipped he is worshipped to remove obstacles on the path of Vishnu bhakti. Like petitioning a saint.
Ente – As I mentioned earlier, it is insulting to Christianty to call their creation or other stories myths. I use stronger words myself, but then I do not also go about saying in the same breath that religions need to be respected.
This, I believe, was how this whole exchange started. This is a symptom of hindu fundamentalism. Give it another decade and we can all chant in unison that Rama is truer than Christ. Gotta keep evolving after all.
I did not say hinduism is not worthy of respect. I’m saying that hinduism, if viewed from the Abrahamic framework (emphasis on truth and historicity) can never, never, never, ever have this respect.
Which Hindus want to fit into that model?
I can understand if one is living in a predominantly Abrahamic culture, to make things easier, you will try to find the similarities between your’s and the majority religion, but in India I have never ever heard this sentiment to fit into an Abrahamic model. There’s no need for it.
Anyway, all religions have some similarities and some differences. It’s time to unite under the similarites, and celebrate the differences, for world peace and harmony.
If you put 100 organized religious members into a room, they will all find something to quarrell about. If you put 100 mystics from the same religions into a room, they will all find something to agree on.
Let’s become mystics!
This caravan of love accepts all! Come out of the desert and drink of it’s clear, clean waters!
When your heart is mad for the Beloved. Only then can you be considered sane in our company!
Tell that to the Pope. Let us know how it goes. Another example of the bubble for those who think I’m being high and mighty about it. Hindus cannot go about showing the path or interpreting the path for non-pagans from their own pagan perspective.
“Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home, the average I.Q. soared.”
“The word ‘hero’ has been bandied about a lot to refer to anyone killed in Afghanistan or Iraq. But anyone who voluntarily goes to Afghanistan or Iraq [as a soldier] is fighting for an evil cause under an evil commander in chief.”
“On July 5 a bomb killed seven recruits for a U.S.-trained Iraqi police force in Ramadi. U.S. occupation administrator Paul Bremer deplored the murder of “innocent Iraqis.” Cops who work for a foreign army of occupation are not innocent. They are collaborators. Traitors. They had it coming.“
“American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS.”
In a 1999 article entitled “School’s out Forever” Rall criticized the manner in which the school was reopened following the Columbine High School massacre, while showing understanding for the murderers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, claiming “the killers saved their bullets for bullies while telling other kids to leave before they got hurt”. He also denounced the re-opening ceremony for the school as a “Nuremberg-style rally” and stated “leaving a few bullet holes or bloodstains behind (perhaps with an explanatory plaque) might have served as a cautionary tale for future bullies and their victims”
if viewed from the Abrahamic framework (emphasis on truth and historicity) can never, never, never, ever have this respect
It’s true to an extent. however, they can have a certain degree of respect towards the people, and their right to practice those said religions. It’s not simply “Abrahamic frameworks” that dictate whether respect can be given, but I’ll agree it does make it harder for them.
Bah! Posting error… but those are quotes from Ted Rall, professional assh*t.
This begs the question as to how much one can depart from the norms of Christian doctrine and still be considered a Christian. It is the essence of why evangelicals believe that non-evangelical Christians are not true believers.
Frankly, it is a conflict that I am confronted with because I am a Christian by birth and consider myself a Christian but don’t subscribe to some of the tenets of conventional Christianity. For example, I do believe that there is more than one path to God – something that conventional Christianity would deem heretical.
Point was that there are different levels of rigid constraints operating on the 2 religions. you just listed a bunch of traditions that believe in different things. in xtianty, even the differnt traditions cannot deviate from believing in Christ. don’t ask me what the point of this is now because i’ve forgotten the context. Gotta go now.
in xtianty, even the differnt traditions cannot deviate from believing in Christ.
I’m saying you’re holding Hinduism and Christianity in the same classification, where Hinduism is a colonial label that corresponds to a group of faiths, that share similarity but have more variation than the specific sects of Christianity.
not so young but you do sound precociously skeptical ; ) who is to decide the norms of doctrine?
I’m really debating getting into this because the argument against is, in my opinion, circular. I’ll try to limit myself to this response and leave it there.
I don’t think it’s awfully deluded to imagine that your religion merits respect. If you live in the United States, a country that despite its flawed history at least preserves a master narrative of plurality and diversity and equality under one civic identity, then I think it is entirely fair to expect equal treatment, accommodation, and respect. One’s belief in the possibility of many gods, or of a multifaceted manifestation of one god through several entities, or worship of an image as proxy for other devotion, does not somehow make you inferior. This characterization of Hinduism is also not entirely accurate. There are plenty of Hindus who do not worship idols in the way you describe, and there are various interpretations of the nature of God/Gods. [To clarify for consistency, I also don’t agree with your rationale behind “high” and “low” languages on the Urdu thread. ] Even if we used your logic and said Hinduism is not equally merit-worthy (which I do not agree with), how does that make it appropriate to lampoon, mock, or degrade it? I could be misinterpreting, but it sounds like you’re arguing that Hinduism is 1) low, 2) an open target (because it is “low”), and 3) that no Hindu should be surprised, offended, or upset that their religion is degraded by others because it is inherently inferior.
There are plenty of religions that preserve the idea that other religions merit respect (i.e. the “many paths to one destination” concept). Your statement presupposes that identification with a religion or religious identity precludes you from respecting anyone from outside your faith tradition. That is inconsistent with reality and with many religions, both in their present interpretation and their historic development.
Razib – “i don’t think someone who rejects evolution is a ‘lunatic’.”
Razib – “i’m an atheist who has little sympathy for “offense” taken when people mock the non-existent”
So Razib, you don’ think that people who swear that the “non-existent” created the earth, the sun, the ten thousand billion light year sized universe and everything on it, in it and in between are a little loony?
hope god forgives me for believing that educated people who deny evolution should be socially ostracized, their blogging skills notwithstanding. unless of course, they are mentally deficient.
that no Hindu should be surprised, offended, or upset that their religion is degraded by others because it is inherently inferior.
I agree with the last two, but not the first. It doesn’t strike me as a surprise, also, it’s not because Hinduism is actually inferior, rather that many practicers of the Abrahamic faiths believe it’s inferior.
for heaven’s sake Camille. Please tell me where I say hinduism does not merit respect and is okay to lampoon? If anything I am saying it does not get respect and does get lampooned and trying to offer reasons for why that is so. Even though you do acknowledge that you could be misinterpreting, this is a total mockery. It’s ridiculous how you’re all about playing nicey-nice and now you come around and essentially say I’m an idiot not aware of your lofty US standards. And how very kind of you assure me that worshiping idols does not make one inferior.
149 · Divya said
Dear Divya, Let the Hindu speak. Love, Gayatri Spivak
[disclosure: this is portmanteau being a boore, which is a portmanteau of boor and bore. how delightfully meta.]
I guess it depends on what you mean by “merit respect”. If the fundamental tenet of a religion is that salvation is only possible if one is an adherent of that particular religion, can it then be argued that those who follow other religions “merit respect”?
If the fundamental tenet of a religion is that salvation is only possible if one is an adherent of that particular religion
it just means that particular tenet must be rejected, or at the very least, “smoothed out” in the practicers mind. Like I said, it’s not impossible, just a bit more difficult.
HMF, but if one rejects a fundamental tenet of a religion, can it then be argued that one is an adherent of the particular religion? I recall reading sometime back that one of the reasons why Islam is appealing to those who convert to the faith is its very rigidity which allows for little in the way of accommodation to fit into the changing times.
Divya, I am by no means saying you are an idiot, and I’m very sorry if my post read that way. I didn’t understand that you were arguing a position for why some Christians might argue that Hinduism does not merit equal standing to other religions; your posts read as though YOU are arguing for that position. I asked for clarification because I was trying to understand where you were coming from, not to denigrate you as an individual. Also, my qualification re: the U.S. was to provide a sense of regional context because I understand that sometimes our (meaning the general SM commenting community) views, interpretations, and arguments differ extensively based on how we imagine the society/community in which our arguments apply. Clearly I misunderstood what you were saying; thank you for clarifying for me.
I think this depends on a faith community and its interpretation of its tenets. I meet plenty of Christians who do not believe that their religion is the only way to salvation, but this is opinion comes from a process of negotiation and reinterpretation of their faith and their understanding of the teachings of Christianity. That said, I was referring to the multitude of other religions that hold “respect for other religions” as a tenet of the faith as HMF refers to above.
but if one rejects a fundamental tenet of a religion, can it then be argued that one is an adherent of the particular religion?
I see what you’re saying. But fact of the matter is, people disagree about what is considered “a fundamental tenet” Even, in strict one’s like islam, et al. I’ve met muslim women that don’t drink, don’t eat pork, but bear their mid-driff. They don’t believe they’re violating fundamental tenets, but other muslims think they are.
In what context is the word pagan being used here?
Anyway, there are several religious Indians in India who do not like being clumped under the label Hindu along with others who believe and practice in things that they are diametrically opposed to.
A vaishnava will never accept being lumped into the same religious group as a shankarite.
The various religions in India that are lumped in under the “Hindu” umbrella are really quite different from one another.
where do you hang out?
I realize you’re asking HMF, but I promise not to be glib with you this time. I say yes, absolutely. You can be an adherent to the religion as you interpret it. You are simply not an adherent to the tenets as interpreted by the fundamentalists. And so what if the fundamentalists say you are not an adherent to the religion? Be firm in your own beliefs and look for a community of like-minded individuals to give you company, to validate your beliefs (if that is what you’re seeking.)
really quite different from one another
well, I dont know about “quite” different. I’d say they bear more in similarity than they do say islam or christianity. Anyway, I think, especially in the US, it’s really dumb for people to bicker over these small things, when there are people who want to wipe all of us out (from a religious standpoint) anyway.
As a vaishnava i have some more in common with muslims and christians than with hindus who worship several different deities or with adwaitavadis who believe the most high is nirupa (without form) or nirguna (without qualities.
On other points however (such as transmigration of the soul) i may have more in common with a mix and match hindu and adwaitavadi. It would have to be broken down point by point.
When it comes to gender and feminist issues, I don’t have anything in common with any of them.
But fact of the matter is, people disagree about what is considered “a fundamental tenet”
But I will add, there is a type of “majority definition” that takes place. At this point I’d say, there aren’t exactly large swaths of xtians (in the US particularly) that are insisting for equal “respect” for other religions, despite individuals who say they do. In a sense, they can define what tenets are going to be followed strictly, and which aren’t.
For example, if you look to ISCKON, you’ll see lots of institutionalized intolerance on that front.
169 · HMF said
Both Islam and Christianity believe that their respective religions is the only way towards God. The central tenet of Christianity is the Jesus is the only path towards salvation. Under this belief all other religions have to be heresy or superstition.
Similarly Islam believes that the path laid out by Mohammad is also the only way to God. Islam does give some legitimacy to the Jewish and Christian religions but Hinduism is considered to be flat out idolatry and also heretical.
Can traditionally observant Christians and Muslims respect Hinduism? Frankly I don’t think so. And I don’t care. As long as I am respected and more importantly, left alone, they could think whatever they want of Hinduism.
Its not fair to lump in Judaism w/ Christianity and Islam under “Abrahamic religions”. Jews believe they have a particular covenant with God and that its possible for other peoples to have their own covenants with God. In fact the doctrine of the “Righteous Gentile” is a basic Jewish belief.
As a vaishnava i have some more in common with muslims and christians
First of all, it depends on which subdivision of vaishnavism. If you said Gaudiya Vaishnavism, there’s a case. but basic things like reincarnation (like you said) and existence of maya (which is still held by dvaitins to a certain degree), but more specifically, it’s the registering of the vedas as apaurashaya, which no christian or muslim would ever dream of doing.
In fact the doctrine of the “Righteous Gentile” is a basic Jewish belief.
but isn’t there a subset of Jews who believe they are the ‘chosen’ ones? This is exactly my point, there is going to be internal debate about what constitutes a “fundamental tenet”
This is why I said if you get 100 neophyte religious followers in a room, they will all find something to quarrell about while 100 mystics will all find something to agree on.
Institutionalized religion kills spirit.
I’ll take a sufi muslim or a gnostic christian as a companion any day over a typical institutionalized vaishnava (iskcon or whatever) even though im a vaishnava as well.
184 · HMF said
Yes – but the belief of being Chosen does not preclude gentiles from reaching God. Even the most chauvinist strains of Judaism (those that believe Jews are superior) also believe that gentiles can also reach God.
<
p>
And what I am saying in in response is that the American public sphere framework of today is not necessarily the Abrahamic framework (which by the way relies on itself as the source of its self proclaimed “truth” and “historicity”–the very definition of tautological reasoning–and for that reason I’m putting those words in quotes). Yes there is definitely overlap, but a distinction has been made, through constitutional and other means. And people who clamor for equal respect for the religions in the American public sphere (by, for example, asking that the stories of both traditions be qualified as myths in comparative religion textbooks, because logically they are the same, regardless of how fervently one individual or a group of individuals might believe in the story) are seeking to uphold that distinction. The Huckabees of the world are seeking to erode that distinction and insist that their Christian (not Abrahamic, Christian, and only of the “approved†denominations–the Catholic vs. “true” Christian debate is a doozy) framework should be synonymous with the American framework and thus, for example if they believe in the Genesis story because that is what the Bible says happened, it is a) an insult to question their belief in the public sphere and b) this belief must afforded more respect in the public sphere than the belief that Atlas holds the earth on his shoulders, because the Huckabees of the world fervently believe it and c) they should be able to act on this belief in the public sphere (for example by banning the teaching of evolution in public schools and insisting that only the Genesis creation story be taught in science classes)despite any or all objective evidence to the contrary. Some may choose to capitulate. I personally support those who choose to fight the erosion of the distinction.
<
p>
Wow. So I guess I should relegate myself to being an inferior citizen in the U.S., what with my religion being ‘pagan’ and all. I don’t care if some Christians think that Hindus are going to hell, what I care about is at least an ATTEMPT at objectivity when it comes to studying religions, and comparing them, in the public sphere (especially in schools).
Divya, with what you said here, it’s just so hard to take you seriously:
No one is asking for that. All I’m asking for is an attempt to consider that the beliefs of ‘pagan’ Hindus like myself aren’t just ‘mythology’ in comparison to those of Christians, which are assumed to be truer and more rational.
And then you go all ‘How dare you!’ on Camille for calling you on your ridiculous argument? Pray tell, what would you have American Hindus do? Just sit back and let their children learn that Hinduism is inferior?
Wait, I know what you’re going to say to this. ‘Hinduism IS inferior, because it’s pagan. It’s fundamentalist to insist otherwise.’
Sorry for my outburst too, Camille. My posts sound confusing because I’m trying to say that from within the position of particular religions, Hinduism will always come across as a pale and errant variant at best. At the same time, I’m also expressing some exasperation with Hindus who go about blithely believing that their religion is now well-respected.
Ente – This sounds like myth and fantasy in itself, but would love to know what happens. In any case, this is a million times better than Hindus clamoring for their stories to be considered true.
Sorry about that. In any case I don’t like to bash Judaism.
As for the Hinduism label in general, I’m aware that it is not apt but for the sake of conversation we just have to make do with it.
There is not much point berating Divya, her attitude is a fairly accurate representation of a majority of non-hindus of non-Indian origin, and ironically, of most scholars of hinduism in the west as well. I couldn’t care less when it comes to religion, but the fact is, something along this lines is true, though not to the same extent, of India studies (both in India and west) as well—and no matter how progressive you are, the two are correlated.
Since much of humanities is subjective, these attitudes show in most “scholarly” work as well, to the extent that social sciences in India is in many cases too far removed from reality to be of much interest. It is in many cases, a weird generalization of something minor that someone sees—and voila, you have ppl believing hindu fundamentalism is about return to sati. Problem? If you say that is the flaw in hindu fundamentalism, you are playing into their hands that they are just being misrepresented—it is after all true in this case.
I’m under the impression that Divya is an Indian Hindu. I’m surprised to read people here think she is putting Hinduism down, while it appears to me that she is glorifying one aspect of it – the mix and match, anything goes, liberal and accepting form which you do see amongst quite a many Hindus in India. It’s an all-encompassing spirit which she seems to be saying Abrahamic religions lack.
the most chauvinist strains of Judaism (those that believe Jews are superior) also believe that gentiles can also reach God.
Jews are more territorial on a cultural front rather than a religious front, this is true. Ortho jews in fact don’t even believe in converting to Judiasm. Although, I still think many Jews while they are open to Christianity and Islam, still have a degree of superiority felt towards religions like Hinduisim/Buddhism, etc..
Many times, “Gentile” is just a euphamism for “Christian”
That’s a very generous reading of her comments. I understand what she’s getting at, that from a more conservative Christian view, Hinduism IS inferior. But what people like myself are arguing for is at least an attempt at objectivity, not an attempt to glorify Hinduism.
Are you saying that one of the axioms of ‘India/Hinduism Studies’ is that India/Hinduism is inferior? I’m not really surprised, unfortunately.
Then how would you explain the large numbers of jews who join international Hindu/yoga organizations. I’ve been around quite a few of those for more than a decade and the number of members from a Jewish background are astounding. Plus, so many Israelis hang out in India and get into the whole yogic/meditationa/cool aspects of Hinduism vibe, and some of them quite deeply.
join international Hindu/yoga organizations
I dont even know what an international hindu/yoga organization is?
Plus, so many Israelis hang out in India and get into the whole yogic/meditationa/cool aspects of Hinduism vibe,
I dont live there so I don’t know, but in the times I’ve visited, I haven’t seen any Israelis. My experience is limited to white American Jews, none of which have taken a disproportionate interest in Hinduism.
And your idea of objectivity is that hindu mythology be given truth status just because Chritian doctrine has it? As my mom used to say: If such-and-such goes and jumps in the well, will you do that also? This is truly pathetic. It took the poor continent of europe more than a thousand years to shake off the dark ages. And look at what we have to deal with in the US! And on top of that you still don’t get how this is fundamentalism.
And you still don’t get what objectivity in the public sphere is.
New Delhi, Manali, Goa, are full of Israelis – after serving their manadatory time in their country’s military, they come to India in droves and some stay for years. Pahar ganj has signs up and down the streets in hebrew and hindi both, same with Goa. Never been to Manali, can’t say.
Finally falefals made their way to Bharat so I’m not complaining!
International hindu/yoga orgs are ISKCON, Gaudiya Math, Osho’s org, Shivananda’s org, Integral Yoga, Yoga Amrit Desai’s org, Yogi Bhajan’s org, and the hundreds of others….. lots of peeps from Jewish background.
That’s a silly analogy. The jump in the well clearly discusses risky/physically harmful but “cool” behavior. not attitudes towards religion & religious history.
Hindu mythology should be given ‘sacred’ status. A great article on this topic is, by Dr. Frank Morales.