Holysmoke Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 John Quincy Adams served as the sixth President of the United States from March 4, 1825, to March 3, 1829. He took the oath of office on a book of laws, instead of the more traditional Bible.
suraj Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 John Quincy Adams served as the sixth President of the United States from March 4' date=' 1825, to March 3, 1829. He took the oath of office on a book of laws, instead of the more traditional Bible.[/quote'] That is an interesting tidbit Thanks Holy!
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Good to know but isn't that blast from the past.. Anyway my point in that thread were two fold (1) real athiests sud not careon which freaking book swearing takes place.. (2) Another was that no matter which stream of hinduism you fall under you can't denigrade gita in-tot and still claim to be hindu. questionign of the edicts of the book is always welcome..
triam Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Good to know but isn't that blast from the past.. Anyway my point in that thread were two fold (1) real athiests sud not careon which freaking book swearing takes place.. (2) Another was that no matter which stream of hinduism you fall under you can't denigrade gita in-tot and still claim to be hindu. questionign of the edicts of the book is always welcome.. how did you come up with point number 1? I am an atheist, and I shun everything religious as much as possible. 2 I will get back to you on that, trying to look up something.
Holysmoke Posted January 21, 2009 Author Posted January 21, 2009 how did you come up with point number 1? I am an atheist' date=' and I shun everything religious as much as possible.[/quote'] Which is exactly what I've been trying to tell Mr. Spellcheck since yesterday, but apparently he doesnt seem to understand what Atheism is.
nikred Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Good to know but isn't that blast from the past.. Anyway my point in that thread were two fold (1) real athiests sud not careon which freaking book swearing takes place.. (2) Another was that no matter which stream of hinduism you fall under you can't denigrade gita in-tot and still claim to be hindu. questionign of the edicts of the book is always welcome.. There can be a range of atheists. Some atheists can be more tolerant or indifferent towards other religious groups while you can come across some who just hate the word religion. But both by definition are atheists nevertheless.
Holysmoke Posted January 21, 2009 Author Posted January 21, 2009 There can be a range of atheists. Some atheists can be more tolerant or indifferent towards other religious groups while you can come across some who just hate the word religion. But both by definition are atheists nevertheless. I would say someone who is more tolerant towards religious groups would be an agnostic...
triam Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Good to know but isn't that blast from the past.. Anyway my point in that thread were two fold (1) real athiests sud not careon which freaking book swearing takes place.. (2) Another was that no matter which stream of hinduism you fall under you can't denigrade gita in-tot and still claim to be hindu. questionign of the edicts of the book is always welcome.. Regarding your point 2,please see the doctrine section of this page The following doctrines, as noted in Renaissance of Hinduism, are common to all varieties and offshoots of the Brahmo Samaj:[23] * Brahmo Samajists have no faith in any scripture as an authority. * Brahmo Samajists have no faith in Avatars. * Brahmo Samajists denounce polytheism and idol-worship. * Brahmo Samajists are against caste restrictions. * Brahmo Samajists make faith in the doctrines of Karma and Rebirth optional. linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmo_Samaj
Mr. Wicket Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 There can be a range of atheists. Some atheists can be more tolerant or indifferent towards other religious groups while you can come across some who just hate the word religion. But both by definition are atheists nevertheless. True, but some should be termed bigots, given their sheer intolerance and obsession with forcing their own "I'm right and you're wrong because you disagree with me" opinions upon others.
cowboysfan Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 are yaar-both adams(father and son)were very religious god fearing christians.john quincy didnt want to use the bible because he felt it should be used only for religiuos purposes only.
triam Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 strictly speaking those beleifs would make them Non-Hindus ... especially the first 3. I am not being pretentious here, but on what basis that would make them non-hindus? Cos as far as I know Hinduism has no real requirements to be a hindu.
Holysmoke Posted January 21, 2009 Author Posted January 21, 2009 That is not true ... simply because we can extend your logic and say anyone who practices Islamic or Christian practices can now be part of the hindu fold. Common knowledge tells us this is not true. More specifically the practice of idol worship. now dont ask me to provide the name of the holy text and the paragraph that says so. Actually, I took a Hinduism class recently. By what I learned there, what Triam says is true. Brahmo Samaj, founded by Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a reform movement within Hinduism..
triam Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 This is like Jainism , Sikhism and Buddhism them. All are various flavours of Hindu ( Indic if you prefer ) culture/philosophy/way of life ... whatever is your poison. See unlike them other religions Hinduism doesnt care about what XYZ considers to be a Hindu practice or not ... nor do they start issuing fatwas. The best example is Buddha being considered as a avatar of Vishnu by some Hindus. But trust me idol worship is an integral part of Hindu culture as is the belief in the Avatars or any of the vedas, Puranas , upanishads , Gita , ramayan etc ..... Nobody really cares how you practice your hinduism ... but there are some guidlines if you want to be picky about it ... and I base my understanding on what are common knowledge and common practices. I have to disagree on "Idol worship" strongly than the other stuff. I will post some references tommorrow as Im short of time now.
The Outsider Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Actually' date=' I took a Hinduism class recently. By what I learned there, what Triam says is true. Brahmo Samaj, founded by Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a reform movement within Hinduism..[/quote'] Arya Samaj, founded by Swami Dayanand, also does not believe in idol worship. A few guys from my extended family follow it.
nikred Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I would say someone who is more tolerant towards religious groups would be an agnostic... Not necessary. An agnostic is a person who is not sure about the existence of god. Why can't an atheist be tolerant towards theists. Some people respect other people's opinion even if they completely disagree with them. Just because you are tolerant towards homosexuals doesn't make you a gay or bi-curious. Does it?
The Outsider Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Not necessary. An agnostic is a person who is not sure about the existence of god. Why can't an atheist be tolerant towards theists. Some people respect other people's opinion even if they completely disagree with them. Just because you are tolerant towards homosexuals doesn't make you a gay or bi-curious. Does it? I consider myself an agnostic ie. I don't care if there is a higher power than us and even if there is it's influence on our existence and life is non existent, but even then I would refuse to swear an oath on a religious text. I celebrate most major festivals, but that does not mean I adhere to the principles of those religions. Festivals, for me, are a part of the rich culture I have lived in and have nothing to do with my swearing allegiance to them or what they stand for with respect to my professional goals.
sandtest Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 John Quincy Adams served as the sixth President of the United States from March 4' date=' 1825, to March 3, 1829. He took the oath of office on a book of laws, instead of the more traditional Bible.[/quote'] In fact, my point was INDIA SPECIFIC, rather than how strong or weak Christian belief of US Presidents are. It is not just about Bible, it is overall show of solidarity, and rightly so, towards their Christain traditions, Christain values-- which may not specifically mean Christainity as a hardcore religion. My question is still VALID and true. If say a candidate is known widely as a person who never goes to Church or is an atheist or is a person who is influenced by "heathen" philosophies like Yoga, mediatation, Budhism and Hinduism etc.,considers Bible as non-divine, then I bet even if he is better orator than Obama or Reagan, he will NEVER get elected as president!! This is what in sharp contrast to India, which is my main concern. USA citizens want a candidate as their President who at least overtly shows respect and acceptance for their tradition and core values embedded in Christianity. It doesnot matter if a person places his hands on Bible then definately he is strong believer of Jesus is Son of God...but what it means is that if a President even if covertly an athiest or agnostic is placing his hand on God, attending Church masses out of sheer respect to their traditional identity.
The Outsider Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 ^ So you desire for hypocrites in power?
THX_1138 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 There can be a range of atheists. Some atheists can be more tolerant or indifferent towards other religious groups while you can come across some who just hate the word religion. But both by definition are atheists nevertheless. And then there is the third category... ME I am back *****es... and i shall break every ruddy rule there is till i get that all elusive IP ban.
sandtest Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Praffessar, It is not that simplistic. Any countries existence as an Unique independent free nation lies in it's unuique Culture and Traditions. A wise thinker has said -- "You can enslave a Nation without going into any war the moment you take away their identity" Just ponder on this word "identity". Bharat's identity is Hinduism and Hinduism's identity is Bharatvarsh You make these two aliens to each other and you have already defeated the idea of India as a country. If this thing cannot get clear in the heads of Indian leaders then surely we are up for another invasion.
Recommended Posts