randomGuy Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Why? What is so tolerant about a religion that espouses conversion? coz at some level, I think of hinduism = indian hindu, who are not as good or as ideal as what is preached in the books.
surajmal Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 coz at some level' date=' I think of hinduism = indian hindu, who are not as good or as ideal as what is preached in the books.[/quote'] I agree with you on that point. Educated Hindus are rudderless copycats of the west while uneducated are headless chickens. Very Hindus understand what it means to be one. But contrasting Hinduism vs Christianity is not the same as contrasting Hindus vs Christians.
randomGuy Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 I agree with you on that point. Educated Hindus are rudderless copycats of the west while uneducated are headless chickens. Agreed. But contrasting Hinduism vs Christianity is not the same as contrasting Hindus vs Christians. caste, khaps, gender discrimination, dowry, Superstitions(tantra-mantra, astrology etc), sikh riots, graham stain and his little children's burning is relevant in "Hinduism vs Christianity in practice" debate coz hindus are mainly in india, these points dont include muslims anyways. though one might say that sikh riots, graham stain and his little children's burning is a one-off and dowry is common in other religions in India. the good thing is that religion would be less n less significant in times to come..
randomGuy Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 If Gandhi (Nehru) family is hindu' date=' then I'm a martian.[/quote'] Maybe you are a martian.:P When nehru gave that provision, his family didnt even have parsi blood(if thats what you were hinting at).
rageaddict Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 I think atleast after the events of 1947 , India should have never been a Secular country. Now since the mistake has already been made lets wait for the next round of Inquilab to begin and make sure that the same mistake is not repeated again after the next partition.
Temujin Khaghan Posted September 20, 2013 Author Posted September 20, 2013 iam not for india being called a hindu country... i like the secular tag better but whats with all the hindu bashing on prime time media... --- but i disagree on a lot of other topics she touched...
Crookbond Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 I think atleast after the events of 1947 , India should have never been a Secular country. Now since the mistake has already been made lets wait for the next round of Inquilab to begin and make sure that the same mistake is not repeated again after the next partition. :haha:
Tiger80 Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Agreed. caste, khaps, gender discrimination, dowry, Superstitions(tantra-mantra, astrology etc), sikh riots, graham stain and his little children's burning is relevant in "Hinduism vs Christianity in practice" debate coz hindus are mainly in india, these points dont include muslims anyways. though one might say that sikh riots, graham stain and his little children's burning is a one-off and dowry is common in other religions in India. the good thing is that religion would be less n less significant in times to come.. What makes you think so? Russians were one of the first to discard the religion 100 years ago.today Russian church is emerging stronger. Religion and spirituality are also making a comeback in China
FischerTal Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Agreed. caste, khaps, gender discrimination, dowry, Superstitions(tantra-mantra, astrology etc), sikh riots, graham stain and his little children's burning is relevant in "Hinduism vs Christianity in practice" debate coz hindus are mainly in india, these points dont include muslims anyways. though one might say that sikh riots, graham stain and his little children's burning is a one-off and dowry is common in other religions in India. the good thing is that religion would be less n less significant in times to come.. not really.....
randomGuy Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 What makes you think so? Russians were one of the first to discard the religion 100 years ago.today Russian church is emerging stronger. Religion and spirituality are also making a comeback in China Religion as in the backwardness and divisiveness of it. Spirtuality is different from religion for me coz religion has become so polluted. Globalization, internet, literacy etc will defeat religion. I read this report also http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/atheism-to-defeat-religion-by-2038_b_1565108.html
Detonator Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 When will the westernized Indian elite realize it? I think Indian elite class is less westernized than the upper middle class and ppl working in private sectors.
Mariyam Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 India would never have been a secular country if some other religion other than Hinduism was the majority one.. Hinduism is much more tolerant than people give it credit for. But I think the time has come to stop this nonsense. What is the 'nonsense' that you are alluding to? You want Hinduism/ Hindus to stop being tolerant? Or India to cease being secular? Or both? The issue comes when being secular is associated with being opposed to practising Hinduism (wearing a tilak on your forehead is portrayed as communalism in the mainstream media) Really? A lot of eminent personalities sport a tilak on a daily basis. Construction biggies, educationists and film stars. I've never seen any of them being accused of being communal. Rohinton Nariman ( ex solicitor general of India) used to sport a tilak in court in his younger days as a sign of respect to his favourite teacher who had died a few weeks before Rohinton started practice.
Mariyam Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 I agree with you on that point. Educated Hindus are rudderless copycats of the west while uneducated are headless chickens. Very Hindus understand what it means to be one. But contrasting Hinduism vs Christianity is not the same as contrasting Hindus vs Christians. Why single out only educated Hindus? Educated Christians, Jains, Muslims and Sikhs are also fairly Westernized in their outlook. A 20 something year old urban upper middle class guy (or girl) is going to have more in common with a person 1000s of kms in New York ( in terms of aspirations, lifestyle, priorities and values in life) than a person a few 100 kms away in the Indian hinterland. I'll share with you an interesting view that I came across in a Khalil Gibran novel. He says that societies always look for simplistic quick fix solutions to complex problems. And the quick fix is involves either going back to doing what we were doing when we were once a great (greatness could be real or perceived) civilization, or simply copy en-masse what the seemingly successful societies of today are doing. Heck, even the European renaissance was in many ways an attempt to get back to the values of the Greek/Roman era. The predominant view in the middle class and the upwardly mobile of India is that a Western model of success can be blindly copied into the Indian system and would be a panacea to all our ills. The other popular counter-thought is that a return to 'pure' Hindu or Islamic ideals would rid the society of all its ills. Neither view really has footing in ground realities.
Mariyam Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Reading Ms Maria Wirth's article has been unnerving though. :nervous: The previous German to have an affinity for a symbol of Hinduism caused a world war. :P I kid I kid
KFC_Zinger Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Really? A lot of eminent personalities sport a tilak on a daily basis. Construction biggies, educationists and film stars. I've never seen any of them being accused of being communal. Rohinton Nariman ( ex solicitor general of India) used to sport a tilak in court in his younger days as a sign of respect to his favourite teacher who had died a few weeks before Rohinton started practice. What he meant was... I am a Muslim and a Nationalist Indian - Omar Abdullah is praised everywhere on TV etc etc I am a Hindu Nationalist : Narendra Modi ridiculed for being communal by all
diga Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 What is the 'nonsense' that you are alluding to? You want Hinduism/ Hindus to stop being tolerant? Or India to cease being secular? Or both? Tolerance is a two way street...& one person cannot keep showing his cheeks.Appeasement should stop iin the name of uplifting of minorites whether you like it or not. Really? A lot of eminent personalities sport a tilak on a daily basis. Construction biggies, educationists and film stars. I've never seen any of them being accused of being communal. Rohinton Nariman ( ex solicitor general of India) used to sport a tilak in court in his younger days as a sign of respect to his favourite teacher who had died a few weeks before Rohinton started practice. I said as "portrayed in media"... I dont have a problem anyone displaying their relegious affinites in public, but castigating one as communal & other as secular is what I have an issue with
The Outsider Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Fine ..Extend the same benefit of doubt to others when they critic the author.. You missed the point completely. My criticism of the author was borne out of the fact that the moron could not differentiate between Hindutva and Hinduism, which is very much part of the quoted article.
diga Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Reading Ms Maria Wirth's article has been unnerving though. :nervous: The previous German to have an affinity for a symbol of Hinduism caused a world war. :P I kid I kid Please Hitler chose swastika as a symbol of Aryan supremacy & the symbol is not limited to only Hinduism.... It was there in medival Europe too ps: I have usually seen people associate Hinduism with Nazi Germany.. may be its related to the casteism as practiced in India, but I bet the segregation of the society exists in most civilizations of the world
Mariyam Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Tolerance is a two way street...& one person cannot keep showing his cheeks.Appeasement should stop iin the name of uplifting of minorites whether you like it or not. I don't know what you are trying to get at. Appeasement of Muslims, or any one for that matter, whether real and perceived is going to be counter productive in the long run. But the answer to that is not intolerance. I said as "portrayed in media"... I dont have a problem anyone displaying their relegious affinites in public' date=' but castigating one as communal & other as secular is what I have an issue with[/quote'] Can you cite an example of someone being called communal because he/she sported a tilak? Or if there were any references to the tilak being communal. I cited the example of Rohinton Nariman, because he isn't Hindu. He's Parsi. And IMO, that is what India and Indians by and large are in essence- inclusive, accommodating and tolerant. Irrespective of their religious denomination.
surajmal Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Maybe you are a martian.:P When nehru gave that provision, his family didnt even have parsi blood(if thats what you were hinting at). We can talk about nature vs nurture till kingdom come but I feel Religion is a personal choice and isn't something passed down through your genes. If that is what you are getting at.
Recommended Posts