How God found Jindal

by confuzzled dude Mon May 12, 2014 9:56 pm

"His religious education reached a higher plane during his junior year in high school, he told his dinner audience. He wanted to ask a pretty girl on a date during a hallway conversation, and she started talking about her faith in God and her opposition to abortion. The girl invited him to visit her church."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bobby-jindal-raised-hindu-uses-christian-conversion-to-woo-gop-base-for-2016-run/2014/05/12/c446fa34-d989-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

-> Like Modi, will this OBC turned evangelical Catholic find success?

by confuzzled dude Mon May 12, 2014 10:05 pm

-> Comment below, sums it all up. How can anyone expect a religious freak like Modi to be secular, beats me.

"Frankly I could not care less which deity "Bobby" chooses to worship. It's when he tries to infuse secular law with his religion that I have issues with"

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon May 12, 2014 11:20 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:"His religious education reached a higher plane during his junior year in high school, he told his dinner audience. He wanted to ask a pretty girl on a date during a hallway conversation, and she started talking about her faith in God and her opposition to abortion. The girl invited him to visit her church."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bobby-jindal-raised-hindu-uses-christian-conversion-to-woo-gop-base-for-2016-run/2014/05/12/c446fa34-d989-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

-> Like Modi, will this OBC turned evangelical Catholic find success?

More like MT Sonia found success in a hindu India.

by smArtha Tue May 13, 2014 12:27 am

confuzzled dude wrote:-> Comment below, sums it all up. How can anyone expect a religious freak like Modi to be secular, beats me.

"Frankly I could not care less which deity "Bobby" chooses to worship. It's when he tries to infuse secular law with his religion that I have issues with"

May be because the religion Modi is aligned to is secular in its very foundations - multiple dieties, multiple gurus, multiple paths and multiple books and their interpretations are all considered valid as opposed to the one Bobby seems to follow which is one book, a particular interpretation and conversion to that path as the only means to salvation. Clearly 'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti' is alien to the Bobby path. Hope that helps.

by swapna Tue May 13, 2014 6:55 am

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:-> Comment below, sums it all up. How can anyone expect a religious freak like Modi to be secular, beats me.

"Frankly I could not care less which deity "Bobby" chooses to worship. It's when he tries to infuse secular law with his religion that I have issues with"

May be because the religion Modi is aligned to is secular in its very foundations - multiple dieties, multiple gurus, multiple paths and multiple books and their interpretations are all considered valid as opposed to the one Bobby seems to follow which is one book, a particular interpretation and conversion to that path as the only means to salvation. Clearly 'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti' is alien to the Bobby path. Hope that helps.

Worshiping multiple deities does not characterize being secular; being indifferent to religion does.

Could you have strengthened your argument by claiming that Hindu gods are multi-limbed, and therefore, Hindus are more secular than non-Hindus?

by Hellsangel Tue May 13, 2014 7:22 am

swapna wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:-> Comment below, sums it all up. How can anyone expect a religious freak like Modi to be secular, beats me.

"Frankly I could not care less which deity "Bobby" chooses to worship. It's when he tries to infuse secular law with his religion that I have issues with"

May be because the religion Modi is aligned to is secular in its very foundations - multiple dieties, multiple gurus, multiple paths and multiple books and their interpretations are all considered valid as opposed to the one Bobby seems to follow which is one book, a particular interpretation and conversion to that path as the only means to salvation. Clearly 'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti' is alien to the Bobby path. Hope that helps.

Worshiping multiple deities does not characterize being secular; being indifferent to religion does.

Could you have strengthened your argument by claiming that Hindu gods are multi-limbed, and therefore, Hindus are more secular than non-Hindus?

Good play, Ammachi! Insult Hindu deities and rile people up so you can pick a fight with more people.

More attention this way!

by smArtha Tue May 13, 2014 9:58 am

swapna wrote:
Worshiping multiple deities does not characterize being secular; being indifferent to religion does.

Could you have strengthened your argument by claiming that Hindu gods are multi-limbed, and therefore, Hindus are more secular than non-Hindus?

>>being indifferent to religion does.

That is the Leftist/Atheistic definition of Secularism. That excludes religion practically from all of the transactions and confines it to the isolated private space of the individual. It then becomes easy for them(the Left) to take the next step of nominating it as a hallucinatory individual indulgence with no relevance to the world at large. This is just a clever facade for pushing the world to an Atheistic one and is definitely not inclusive or embracing of wider diversity.

The secularism that India adopted is more Right/Agnostic (I can claim it is inspired from the schools/religions of the Sanatana Dharma) one where we acknowledge existence of different religions/traditions/spiritual paths (yes including those of the atheistic and agnostic ones) and strive to maintain an equilibrium (sarva dharma sama bhav) in the society. This one is more in line with ecnourage and preserve diversity and yet maintain social equilibrium and unity.

>>Could you have strengthened your argument by claiming that Hindu gods are multi-limbed, and therefore, Hindus are more secular than non-Hindus?

You are free to strengthen your version on such irrational arguments viz. having multiple identities/handles qualifies you as Secular etc etc. I have no interest in using your brains and line of reasoning to further my take.

by indophile Tue May 13, 2014 10:05 am

confuzzled dude wrote:"His religious education reached a higher plane during his junior year in high school, he told his dinner audience. He wanted to ask a pretty girl on a date during a hallway conversation, and she started talking about her faith in God and her opposition to abortion. The girl invited him to visit her church."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bobby-jindal-raised-hindu-uses-christian-conversion-to-woo-gop-base-for-2016-run/2014/05/12/c446fa34-d989-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

-> Like Modi, will this OBC turned evangelical Catholic find success?

I thought Jindal is a bania name (like a Goel, Agarwal, Gupta, Mittal, Bansal, etc.), not OBC.

by Hellsangel Tue May 13, 2014 10:06 am

indophile wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:"His religious education reached a higher plane during his junior year in high school, he told his dinner audience. He wanted to ask a pretty girl on a date during a hallway conversation, and she started talking about her faith in God and her opposition to abortion. The girl invited him to visit her church."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bobby-jindal-raised-hindu-uses-christian-conversion-to-woo-gop-base-for-2016-run/2014/05/12/c446fa34-d989-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

-> Like Modi, will this OBC turned evangelical Catholic find success?

I thought Jindal is a bania name (like a Goel, Agarwal, Gupta, Mittal, Bansal, etc.), not OBC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindal

by Kris Tue May 13, 2014 10:09 am

swapna wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:-> Comment below, sums it all up. How can anyone expect a religious freak like Modi to be secular, beats me.

"Frankly I could not care less which deity "Bobby" chooses to worship. It's when he tries to infuse secular law with his religion that I have issues with"

May be because the religion Modi is aligned to is secular in its very foundations - multiple dieties, multiple gurus, multiple paths and multiple books and their interpretations are all considered valid as opposed to the one Bobby seems to follow which is one book, a particular interpretation and conversion to that path as the only means to salvation. Clearly 'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti' is alien to the Bobby path. Hope that helps.

Worshiping multiple deities does not characterize being secular; being indifferent to religion does.

Could you have strengthened your argument by claiming that Hindu gods are multi-limbed, and therefore, Hindus are more secular than non-Hindus?

>>>I am not sure of the context here since I haven't read this whole thread, but the bolded section is true anyway. Yes, it could be because of the various forms of deities they worship, but more likely due to the diverse traditions of Hindu philosophy.

by indophile Tue May 13, 2014 10:11 am

Yes, there are 16 and half gotras among Agarwals (Agarwal, Jindal, Goel, Gupta, Mittal etc.). I don't know what that half means.

by southindian Tue May 13, 2014 10:26 am

confuzzled dude wrote:"His religious education reached a higher plane during his junior year in high school, he told his dinner audience. He wanted to ask a pretty girl on a date during a hallway conversation, and she started talking about her faith in God and her opposition to abortion. The girl invited him to visit her church."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bobby-jindal-raised-hindu-uses-christian-conversion-to-woo-gop-base-for-2016-run/2014/05/12/c446fa34-d989-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

-> Like Modi, will this OBC turned evangelical Catholic find success?

Nope! Opportunists like Congress in India.

Jindal KNOWS he could not have done anything as Hindu. Bolded red sums up all.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue May 13, 2014 10:53 am

swapna wrote:

Worshiping multiple deities does not characterize being secular; being indifferent to religion does.

Could you have strengthened your argument by claiming that Hindu gods are multi-limbed, and therefore, Hindus are more secular than non-Hindus?

Yes.. our holy book says so. Then it has to be correct.

by confuzzled dude Tue May 13, 2014 12:52 pm

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:-> Comment below, sums it all up. How can anyone expect a religious freak like Modi to be secular, beats me.

"Frankly I could not care less which deity "Bobby" chooses to worship. It's when he tries to infuse secular law with his religion that I have issues with"

May be because the religion Modi is aligned to is secular in its very foundations - multiple dieties, multiple gurus, multiple paths and multiple books and their interpretations are all considered valid as opposed to the one Bobby seems to follow which is one book, a particular interpretation and conversion to that path as the only means to salvation. Clearly 'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti' is alien to the Bobby path. Hope that helps.

Are we talking about the same religion. The very foundations of Hinduism are discriminate, divide and conquer in the form of caste based hierarchy. Also, I am yet to come across a secular sounding RSS guy.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue May 13, 2014 1:04 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:-> Comment below, sums it all up. How can anyone expect a religious freak like Modi to be secular, beats me.

"Frankly I could not care less which deity "Bobby" chooses to worship. It's when he tries to infuse secular law with his religion that I have issues with"

May be because the religion Modi is aligned to is secular in its very foundations - multiple dieties, multiple gurus, multiple paths and multiple books and their interpretations are all considered valid as opposed to the one Bobby seems to follow which is one book, a particular interpretation and conversion to that path as the only means to salvation. Clearly 'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti' is alien to the Bobby path. Hope that helps.
Are we talking about the same religion. The very foundations of Hinduism are discriminate, divide and conquer in the form of caste based hierarchy. Also, I am yet to come across a secular sounding RSS guy.

That's because you probably don't know what the real secularism (viz. really secular) is. Ask any RSS guy and he will tell you that he is for the UCC in India, which is the best sign of supporting the real secularism.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue May 13, 2014 1:07 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:-> Comment below, sums it all up. How can anyone expect a religious freak like Modi to be secular, beats me.

"Frankly I could not care less which deity "Bobby" chooses to worship. It's when he tries to infuse secular law with his religion that I have issues with"

May be because the religion Modi is aligned to is secular in its very foundations - multiple dieties, multiple gurus, multiple paths and multiple books and their interpretations are all considered valid as opposed to the one Bobby seems to follow which is one book, a particular interpretation and conversion to that path as the only means to salvation. Clearly 'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti' is alien to the Bobby path. Hope that helps.
Are we talking about the same religion. The very foundations of Hinduism are discriminate, divide and conquer in the form of caste based hierarchy. Also, I am yet to come across a secular sounding RSS guy.

Have you ever been to a Shakha or an RSS office ever ?

by confuzzled dude Tue May 13, 2014 1:12 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:-> Comment below, sums it all up. How can anyone expect a religious freak like Modi to be secular, beats me.

"Frankly I could not care less which deity "Bobby" chooses to worship. It's when he tries to infuse secular law with his religion that I have issues with"

May be because the religion Modi is aligned to is secular in its very foundations - multiple dieties, multiple gurus, multiple paths and multiple books and their interpretations are all considered valid as opposed to the one Bobby seems to follow which is one book, a particular interpretation and conversion to that path as the only means to salvation. Clearly 'ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti' is alien to the Bobby path. Hope that helps.
Are we talking about the same religion. The very foundations of Hinduism are discriminate, divide and conquer in the form of caste based hierarchy. Also, I am yet to come across a secular sounding RSS guy.

Have you ever been to a Shakha or an RSS office ever ?

No. but I know a bunch of them, some are close friends.

by smArtha Tue May 13, 2014 1:15 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:Are we talking about the same religion. The very foundations of Hinduism are discriminate, divide and conquer in the form of caste based hierarchy. Also, I am yet to come across a secular sounding RSS guy.

Varna system is what is part of Hinduism (the religious and spiritual traditions that fall under this umbrella). The jAti (caste) is not part of the religion. That came about outside of the religion in the society. The differences were discussed many times over and over again. If you are 'genuinely' interested you can find it out yourself. All the ills you speak about - discrimination and atrocities were an outcome of the jAti system.

To your last point about secular sounding RSS guy, personally, I met more RSS seculars than those of Left/Cong aligned islamists or evangelists. But I'm not coming to any 'silly' conclusions based on my own samples.

by confuzzled dude Tue May 13, 2014 1:23 pm

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:Are we talking about the same religion. The very foundations of Hinduism are discriminate, divide and conquer in the form of caste based hierarchy. Also, I am yet to come across a secular sounding RSS guy.

Varna system is what is part of Hinduism (the religious and spiritual traditions that fall under this umbrella). The jAti (caste) is not part of the religion. That came about outside of the religion in the society. The differences were discussed many times over and over again. If you are 'genuinely' interested you can find it out yourself. All the ills you speak about - discrimination and atrocities were an outcome of the jAti system.

To your last point about secular sounding RSS guy, personally, I met more RSS seculars than those of Left/Cong aligned islamists or evangelists. But I'm not coming to any 'silly' conclusions based on my own samples.

When I said similar stuff about another holy book people thought I needed to take my blinders off, go figure.

by smArtha Tue May 13, 2014 1:25 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:When I said similar stuff about another holy book people thought I needed to take my blinders off, go figure.

Are you expecting that I explain on behalf of those people?

by confuzzled dude Tue May 13, 2014 1:34 pm

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:When I said similar stuff about another holy book people thought I needed to take my blinders off, go figure.

Are you expecting that I explain on behalf of those people?

No I'm saying that attempts to separte casteism from Hinduism from Hindu religion are nothing but cop-out. At the end of the day fault lies with the adherents of that religion or the elite that preached the concept in erroneous manner to the masses.

by smArtha Tue May 13, 2014 1:45 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:No I'm saying that attempts to separte casteism from Hinduism from Hindu religion are nothing but cop-out. At the end of the day fault lies with the adherents of that religion or the elite that preached the concept in erroneous manner to the masses.

Casteism is not a product of Hinduism but however followed and exploited by Hindus. Hindus like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too. Do you call all of the local cuisine of your state or region Hindu cuisine? Religion did have injunctions on the kind of food to eat and the way to prepare it. But this doesn't qualify all of the local cuisine that is in vogue now as an outcome of the religion itself.

by confuzzled dude Tue May 13, 2014 2:10 pm

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:No I'm saying that attempts to separte casteism from Hinduism from Hindu religion are nothing but cop-out. At the end of the day fault lies with the adherents of that religion or the elite that preached the concept in erroneous manner to the masses.

Casteism is not a product of Hinduism but however followed and exploited by Hindus. Hindus like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too. Do you call all of the local cuisine of your state or region Hindu cuisine? Religion did have injunctions on the kind of food to eat and the way to prepare it. But this doesn't qualify all of the local cuisine that is in vogue now as an outcome of the religion itself.

but caste is not a local cuisine, it is uniformly accepted practice.

by smArtha Tue May 13, 2014 2:53 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:but caste is not a local cuisine, it is uniformly accepted practice.

Is poori/roti/chapati part of Hinduism? It is not local to any area.

by Propagandhi711 Tue May 13, 2014 7:18 pm

comrade in his grief is fast becoming the second rishi of such

by confuzzled dude Tue May 13, 2014 8:12 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:comrade in his grief is fast becoming the second rishi of such

Did you even bother reading the linked article before passing judgments.

“I read the words of Jesus Christ, and I realized that they were true,” Jindal told the graduates Saturday, offering a less detailed accounting of his conversion than he had done the night before with the pastors. “I used to think that I had found God, but I believe it is more accurate to say that He found me.”

by Guest Tue May 13, 2014 8:32 pm

Another 'devuni bidda':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FcZrdeTa_k

by Kris Tue May 13, 2014 11:43 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:"His religious education reached a higher plane during his junior year in high school, he told his dinner audience. He wanted to ask a pretty girl on a date during a hallway conversation, and she started talking about her faith in God and her opposition to abortion. The girl invited him to visit her church."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bobby-jindal-raised-hindu-uses-christian-conversion-to-woo-gop-base-for-2016-run/2014/05/12/c446fa34-d989-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

-> Like Modi, will this OBC turned evangelical Catholic find success?

>>>Strange ice breaker, but there are two possibilities here:

1) she was giving him a hint;

2) she was trying to give him the brush off with this religion talk.

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 10:52 am

smArtha wrote:>>being indifferent to religion does.

That is the Leftist/Atheistic definition of Secularism. That excludes religion practically from all of the transactions and confines it to the isolated private space of the individual. It then becomes easy for them(the Left) to take the next step of nominating it as a hallucinatory individual indulgence with no relevance to the world at large. This is just a clever facade for pushing the world to an Atheistic one and is definitely not inclusive or embracing of wider diversity.

The secularism that India adopted is more Right/Agnostic (I can claim it is inspired from the schools/religions of the Sanatana Dharma) one where we acknowledge existence of different religions/traditions/spiritual paths (yes including those of the atheistic and agnostic ones) and strive to maintain an equilibrium (sarva dharma sama bhav) in the society. This one is more in line with ecnourage and preserve diversity and yet maintain social equilibrium and unity.

You could not be more wrong about this. Indifference of the state to religion is not a "leftist" or even atheistic definition of secularism. It is the basic meaning of the term. Separation of religion from state is at the root of secularism. The concept derives not from atheists or leftists, but from Martin Luther's doctrine of two kingdoms, and John Locke's argument that the state has no role in matters of individual conscience and belief. Martin Luther was no atheist; as a deeply religious monk, he initiated the Protestant Reformation in Christianity. And John Locke was against atheists, and like my guruvu-gaaru still does in the 21st century, believed in his day that atheists were amoral people.

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 11:07 am

smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:No I'm saying that attempts to separte casteism from Hinduism from Hindu religion are nothing but cop-out. At the end of the day fault lies with the adherents of that religion or the elite that preached the concept in erroneous manner to the masses.

Casteism is not a product of Hinduism but however followed and exploited by Hindus. Hindus like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too. Do you call all of the local cuisine of your state or region Hindu cuisine? Religion did have injunctions on the kind of food to eat and the way to prepare it. But this doesn't qualify all of the local cuisine that is in vogue now as an outcome of the religion itself.

Let us try this on for size.

Terrorism / violence against infidels is not a product of Islam but however followed and exploited by Muslims. Muslims like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too.

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 11:13 am

Secularism in its true sense is the separation of religion and state/govt.

In india, secularism=appeasement of the minorities, the more you try to appease them, the more secular you are. Vote bank politics to woo the minorities, who vote en masse, is being projected as secularism.

In US, the country of 'In God we trust' and 'God bless America', an effort was made during the cold war against Russia that America was *not* a communist country like Russia (who were intolerant to all religions) and that trend continues.

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 11:18 am

Idéfix wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:No I'm saying that attempts to separte casteism from Hinduism from Hindu religion are nothing but cop-out. At the end of the day fault lies with the adherents of that religion or the elite that preached the concept in erroneous manner to the masses.

Casteism is not a product of Hinduism but however followed and exploited by Hindus. Hindus like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too. Do you call all of the local cuisine of your state or region Hindu cuisine? Religion did have injunctions on the kind of food to eat and the way to prepare it. But this doesn't qualify all of the local cuisine that is in vogue now as an outcome of the religion itself.
Let us try this on for size.

Terrorism / violence against infidels is not a product of Islam but however followed and exploited by Muslims. Muslims like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too.

Violence against infidels *is* prescribed in their holy book which they follow religiously. Isn't that kind of violence against others prescribed in other religious texts? It is. The difference is that others don't follow that blindly and are not as religious as the muslims to follow it blindly in the name of religion.

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 11:20 am

Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:No I'm saying that attempts to separte casteism from Hinduism from Hindu religion are nothing but cop-out. At the end of the day fault lies with the adherents of that religion or the elite that preached the concept in erroneous manner to the masses.

Casteism is not a product of Hinduism but however followed and exploited by Hindus. Hindus like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too. Do you call all of the local cuisine of your state or region Hindu cuisine? Religion did have injunctions on the kind of food to eat and the way to prepare it. But this doesn't qualify all of the local cuisine that is in vogue now as an outcome of the religion itself.
Let us try this on for size.

Terrorism / violence against infidels is not a product of Islam but however followed and exploited by Muslims. Muslims like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too.

Violence against infidels *is* prescribed in their holy book which they follow religiously. Isn't that kind of violence against others prescribed in other religious texts? It is. The difference is that others don't follow that blindly and are not as religious as the muslims to follow it blindly in the name of religion.

And caste is all over Hindu religious texts. Trying to pretend that casteism is not part of Hinduism is very much like pretending that violence against infidels is not part of Islam. See the bolded text in smartha's comment above.

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 11:23 am

Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
smArtha wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:No I'm saying that attempts to separte casteism from Hinduism from Hindu religion are nothing but cop-out. At the end of the day fault lies with the adherents of that religion or the elite that preached the concept in erroneous manner to the masses.

Casteism is not a product of Hinduism but however followed and exploited by Hindus. Hindus like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too. Do you call all of the local cuisine of your state or region Hindu cuisine? Religion did have injunctions on the kind of food to eat and the way to prepare it. But this doesn't qualify all of the local cuisine that is in vogue now as an outcome of the religion itself.
Let us try this on for size.

Terrorism / violence against infidels is not a product of Islam but however followed and exploited by Muslims. Muslims like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too.

Violence against infidels *is* prescribed in their holy book which they follow religiously. Isn't that kind of violence against others prescribed in other religious texts? It is. The difference is that others don't follow that blindly and are not as religious as the muslims to follow it blindly in the name of religion.
And caste is all over Hindu religious texts. Trying to pretend that casteism is not part of Hinduism is very much like pretending that violence against infidels is not part of Islam. See the bolded text in smartha's comment above.

The question is, how religiously are hindus following it in the current day and age? there's a lot of violence in the old and new testaments too. how religious are the jews and christians to follow it blindly and cause pain to others?

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 11:26 am

Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
smArtha wrote:

Casteism is not a product of Hinduism but however followed and exploited by Hindus. Hindus like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too. Do you call all of the local cuisine of your state or region Hindu cuisine? Religion did have injunctions on the kind of food to eat and the way to prepare it. But this doesn't qualify all of the local cuisine that is in vogue now as an outcome of the religion itself.
Let us try this on for size.

Terrorism / violence against infidels is not a product of Islam but however followed and exploited by Muslims. Muslims like those of any other religion are a product of the teachings of the religion as well as adherents of regional/social and other practices that came about outside of the religion too.

Violence against infidels *is* prescribed in their holy book which they follow religiously. Isn't that kind of violence against others prescribed in other religious texts? It is. The difference is that others don't follow that blindly and are not as religious as the muslims to follow it blindly in the name of religion.
And caste is all over Hindu religious texts. Trying to pretend that casteism is not part of Hinduism is very much like pretending that violence against infidels is not part of Islam. See the bolded text in smartha's comment above.
The question is, how religiously are hindus following it in the current day and age? there's a lot of violence in the old and new testaments too. how religious are the jews and christians to follow it blindly and cause pain to others?

The majority of Hindus still observe caste rituals and practices quite religiously -- in the current day and age.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in holding Islam responsible for the bad practices of Muslims, while not acknowledging the role of Hinduism in the bad practices of Hindus. I hope you see that. Any honest observer would acknowledge the role of religion in the bad practices on both sides.

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 11:32 am

Idéfix wrote:
The question is, how religiously are hindus following it in the current day and age? there's a lot of violence in the old and new testaments too. how religious are the jews and christians to follow it blindly and cause pain to others?
The majority of Hindus still observe caste rituals and practices quite religiously -- in the current day and age.

Nothing wrong with that. other religions and their sects have their own rituals and practices which they follow religiously. Take christianity: the greek orthodox, the methodist, the baptist, the presbitarian, the catholic, the mormons, the seventh day evangelists...etc etc have their own rituals and practices which they follow religiously. Same with the muslim sects: the shias, sunnis, ahmedis, bahais, sufis, etc etc...

The problem is not with ppl of different sects/castes following their own rituals and practices religiously. The problem comes when they cause pain to others because of the fact that they are not of their religion/sect/caste.

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 11:37 am

Kinnera, apparently you cannot see the hypocrisy in not acknowledging the role of Hinduism in enabling and justifying caste discrimination, while blaming Islam (correctly IMO) for its role in enabling and justifying violence against infidels. I have said what I needed to on the matter.

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 11:47 am

Idéfix wrote:Kinnera, apparently you cannot see the hypocrisy in not acknowledging the role of Hinduism in enabling and justifying caste discrimination, while blaming Islam (correctly IMO) for its role in enabling violence against infidels.

Not in the current day and age, Ide. Casteism probably had its ugly face in the past, and probably it was justified in the name of religion, but aren't we not better now than we were a century ago? The kind of mindset that that musician dude wrote in his article....how often do you see that around you? People are evolving.

Slavery in US was also given a religious sanction back in the day. They quoted the bible verses to justify it. Slavery is worse than casteism. How many are now blaming christianity for it? People are beyond it.

People fought against casteism, ppl fought against slavery and won. Now the fight is against the violence against infidels. Let's fight it and not give excuses. Once we are beyond it, and such things don't happen in future, no one is going to keep bringing it up and keep blaming Islam.

Islam needs to evolve too. That is a fact.

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 11:57 am

Kinnera wrote:Not in the current day and age, Ide. Casteism probably had its ugly face in the past, and probably it was justified in the name of religion,

Probably, eh? Even when talking about the past, you can't bring yourself to squarely admit the role of your religion in enabling and justifying vile behavior over much of history!

Kinnera wrote:but aren't we not better now than we were a century ago?

Oh, that's your new goalpost, is it? Then let's try this on for size. Just sixty years ago, Razakars quoting the Quran were killing Hindus and moderate Muslims in Telangana. "Aren't we not better now" than we were sixty years ago? Should you then apply the same logic and stop talking about Islam's role in enabling and justifying violence against infidels, because we are better off than we were?

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 12:11 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Not in the current day and age, Ide. Casteism probably had its ugly face in the past, and probably it was justified in the name of religion,
Probably, eh? Even when talking about the past, you can't bring yourself to squarely admit the role of your religion in enabling and justifying vile behavior over much of history!

Kinnera wrote:but aren't we not better now than we were a century ago?
Oh, that's your new goalpost, is it? Then let's try this on for size. Just sixty years ago, Razakars quoting the Quran were killing Hindus and moderate Muslims in Telangana. "Aren't we not better now" than we were sixty years ago? Should you then apply the same logic and stop talking about Islam's role in enabling and justifying violence against infidels, because we are better off than we were?

If the kind of mindset the musician dude describes still exists, then yes, one needs to resist it vehemently. Who says no. I said the same in the other thread. If it's given a religious sanction, then criticize the religion too and give some philosophical/spiritual wisdom to them.
If ppl are still discriminating and treating blacks as slaves, resist it. Again, if they are giving a religious angle to justify it, criticize the damn religion too. Who says no?

Honestly, do you think Islam is better off now than it was sixty years ago? You think it has evolved? Srsly? We still have violence perpetrated in the name of Islam and that needs to be resisted.

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 12:32 pm

Kinnera wrote:If the kind of mindset the musician dude describes still exists, then yes, one needs to resist it vehemently. Who says no. I said the same in the other thread. If it's given a religious sanction, then criticize the religion too and inculcate some philosophical/spiritual wisdom to them.

I don't know what world you live in, but caste-based violence still occurs in India in this day and age. According to statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau, about 30,000 cases of such crimes are reported against dailts each year between 2001 and 2012.

When Hindus fail to acknowledge this sad reality and the role of their religion in enabling and justifying this violence, they come across as hypocrites if they then lament about Muslims not acknowledging the role of their religion in enabling and justifying violence against infidels.

Your entire reaction on this thread is very similar to the reaction of Muslim apologists to Islamic terrorism.

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 12:49 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:If the kind of mindset the musician dude describes still exists, then yes, one needs to resist it vehemently. Who says no. I said the same in the other thread. If it's given a religious sanction, then criticize the religion too and inculcate some philosophical/spiritual wisdom to them.
I don't know what world you live in, but caste-based violence still occurs in India in this day and age. According to statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau, about 30,000 cases of such crimes are reported against dailts each year between 2001 and 2012.

When Hindus fail to acknowledge this sad reality and the role of their religion in enabling and justifying this violence, they come across as hypocrites if they then lament about Muslims not acknowledging the role of their religion in enabling and justifying violence against infidels.

Your entire reaction on this thread is very similar to the reaction of Muslim apologists to Islamic terrorism.

How much of the violence is given a religious angle? Isn't it more of a sociological problem than religious? Though slavery ceases to exist in this country, discrimination against blacks still does. Is that religious or sociological? Each time a discrimination case is filed in the courts, do ppl look for a christian angle to it because slavery, segregation and discrimination were all justified previously in the name of god and the bible?

Jehadi terrorism is in a totally different league than casteism and racism.

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 12:55 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:If the kind of mindset the musician dude describes still exists, then yes, one needs to resist it vehemently. Who says no. I said the same in the other thread. If it's given a religious sanction, then criticize the religion too and inculcate some philosophical/spiritual wisdom to them.
I don't know what world you live in, but caste-based violence still occurs in India in this day and age. According to statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau, about 30,000 cases of such crimes are reported against dailts each year between 2001 and 2012.

When Hindus fail to acknowledge this sad reality and the role of their religion in enabling and justifying this violence, they come across as hypocrites if they then lament about Muslims not acknowledging the role of their religion in enabling and justifying violence against infidels.

Your entire reaction on this thread is very similar to the reaction of Muslim apologists to Islamic terrorism.

How much of the violence is given a religious angle? Isn't it more of a sociological problem than religious? Though slavery ceases to exist in this country, discrimination against blacks still does. Is that religious or sociological? Each time a discrimination case is filed in the courts, do ppl look for a christian angle to it because slavery, segregation and discrimination were all justified previously in the name of god and the bible?

Jehadi terrorism is in a totally different league than casteism and racism.

More apologia of the Zakir Naik variety.

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 1:00 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:If the kind of mindset the musician dude describes still exists, then yes, one needs to resist it vehemently. Who says no. I said the same in the other thread. If it's given a religious sanction, then criticize the religion too and inculcate some philosophical/spiritual wisdom to them.
I don't know what world you live in, but caste-based violence still occurs in India in this day and age. According to statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau, about 30,000 cases of such crimes are reported against dailts each year between 2001 and 2012.

When Hindus fail to acknowledge this sad reality and the role of their religion in enabling and justifying this violence, they come across as hypocrites if they then lament about Muslims not acknowledging the role of their religion in enabling and justifying violence against infidels.

Your entire reaction on this thread is very similar to the reaction of Muslim apologists to Islamic terrorism.

How much of the violence is given a religious angle? Isn't it more of a sociological problem than religious? Though slavery ceases to exist in this country, discrimination against blacks still does. Is that religious or sociological? Each time a discrimination case is filed in the courts, do ppl look for a christian angle to it because slavery, segregation and discrimination were all justified previously in the name of god and the bible?

Jehadi terrorism is in a totally different league than casteism and racism.
More apologia of the Zakir Naik variety.

I knew you are not left with anything better to say.

Thankfully, i come from a better family environment where every human is respected, irrespective of one's caste. so i don't really understand the caste biases. It may not be the same case with you and max. I am sorry.

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 1:03 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:If the kind of mindset the musician dude describes still exists, then yes, one needs to resist it vehemently. Who says no. I said the same in the other thread. If it's given a religious sanction, then criticize the religion too and inculcate some philosophical/spiritual wisdom to them.
I don't know what world you live in, but caste-based violence still occurs in India in this day and age. According to statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau, about 30,000 cases of such crimes are reported against dailts each year between 2001 and 2012.

When Hindus fail to acknowledge this sad reality and the role of their religion in enabling and justifying this violence, they come across as hypocrites if they then lament about Muslims not acknowledging the role of their religion in enabling and justifying violence against infidels.

Your entire reaction on this thread is very similar to the reaction of Muslim apologists to Islamic terrorism.

How much of the violence is given a religious angle? Isn't it more of a sociological problem than religious? Though slavery ceases to exist in this country, discrimination against blacks still does. Is that religious or sociological? Each time a discrimination case is filed in the courts, do ppl look for a christian angle to it because slavery, segregation and discrimination were all justified previously in the name of god and the bible?

Jehadi terrorism is in a totally different league than casteism and racism.
More apologia of the Zakir Naik variety.

I knew you are not left with anything better to say.

Thankfully, i come from a better family environment where every human is respected, irrespective of one's caste. so i don't really understand the caste biases. It may not be the same case with you and max. I am sorry.

Yeah, apologists of Islamic terror can say:

Thankfully, i come from a better family environment where every human is respected, irrespective of one's ~~caste~~ religion. so i don't really understand the ~~caste~~ Muslim/non-Muslim biases. It may not be the same case with you and max. I am sorry.

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 1:08 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
I don't know what world you live in, but caste-based violence still occurs in India in this day and age. According to statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau, about 30,000 cases of such crimes are reported against dailts each year between 2001 and 2012.

When Hindus fail to acknowledge this sad reality and the role of their religion in enabling and justifying this violence, they come across as hypocrites if they then lament about Muslims not acknowledging the role of their religion in enabling and justifying violence against infidels.

Your entire reaction on this thread is very similar to the reaction of Muslim apologists to Islamic terrorism.

How much of the violence is given a religious angle? Isn't it more of a sociological problem than religious? Though slavery ceases to exist in this country, discrimination against blacks still does. Is that religious or sociological? Each time a discrimination case is filed in the courts, do ppl look for a christian angle to it because slavery, segregation and discrimination were all justified previously in the name of god and the bible?

Jehadi terrorism is in a totally different league than casteism and racism.
More apologia of the Zakir Naik variety.

I knew you are not left with anything better to say.

Thankfully, i come from a better family environment where every human is respected, irrespective of one's caste. so i don't really understand the caste biases. It may not be the same case with you and max. I am sorry.

Yeah, apologists of Islamic terror can say:

Thankfully, i come from a better family environment where every human is respected, irrespective of one's ~~caste~~ religion. so i don't really understand the ~~caste~~ Muslim/non-Muslim biases. It may not be the same case with you and max. I am sorry.

So you do think that casteism and racism are on par with Jehadi terrorism? What kind of environment did you come from to believe that?
Of course, casteism and racism are sociological problems that one need to fight against. No question about it.

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 1:27 pm

Kinnera wrote:So you do think that casteism and racism are on par with Jehadi terrorism?

No, each problem is different.

Kinnera wrote:Of course, casteism and racism are sociological problems that one need to fight against. No question about it.

It is fascinating how you shy away from acknowledging the role of your religion in this problem, and portray it as merely "sociological."

by Guest Wed May 14, 2014 1:52 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Kinnera wrote:So you do think that casteism and racism are on par with Jehadi terrorism?
No, each problem is different.

Kinnera wrote:Of course, casteism and racism are sociological problems that one need to fight against. No question about it.
It is fascinating how you shy away from acknowledging the role of your religion in this problem, and portray it as merely "sociological."

I didn't. I said, it indeed was given a religious angle back in the day just as slavery and discrimination against blacks was. Now both are more of a sociological problems and we need to fight that too. Go to your christian friend and say that christianity has a role to play in current day racism because it did play a major role during the times of slavery and segregation. You think he'll agree with you? If he does, then there is a biiiig problem. It means, he is justifying it. He should belong to the kkk crap.

Similarly, the fact that hindus are not giving casteism a religious sanction is in itself a good trend, a very welcome trend. I don't know why you pseudos keep insisting on giving it a religious angle and try to go into the middle ages. We moved away from it and it took great efforts from the reformists and revivalists (the first being Adi Sankaracharya) to see it as an evil and detach it from the religion. They redefined the four varnas in a more philosophical sense.

The jehadis give the violence against infidels a clear religious sanction, without shame and very proud to do so. They justify it in the backdrop of their religion. That's dangerous.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed May 14, 2014 1:55 pm

Idéfix wrote:Kinnera, apparently you cannot see the hypocrisy in not acknowledging the role of Hinduism in enabling and justifying caste discrimination, while blaming Islam (correctly IMO) for its role in enabling and justifying violence against infidels. I have said what I needed to on the matter.

In hinduism it is called caste discrimination - bcz the whities said so.

What do you call the discriminations between various groups in Christian, islamic, jewish, budhist religions? each group considers itself superior to otehrs. It so happend most hindus live in the same piece of real estate for 1000s of years.

Hindu casteism is not wide spread in SA, Windies, Fiji, etc.. bcz they were small in number and they were placed in a different, new env.

So stop hindu bashing for the sake of bashing. If hindus are bad mouthed for practicing and wrongly interpreting certain things in their "scriptures" why not bad mouth the whole groups that misinterpret their respective holy books?

by Idéfix Wed May 14, 2014 2:30 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Idéfix wrote:It is fascinating how you shy away from acknowledging the role of your religion in this problem, and portray it as merely "sociological."

I didn't. I said, it indeed was given a religious angle back in the day

You absolutely shied away from acknowledging the role of Hinduism in caste-based discrimination and violence. You said: "Casteism probably had its ugly face in the past, and probably it was justified in the name of religion." If a Muslim apologist used this sort of equivocation, you would be accusing them of extending tacit support to terrorism.

Even now, you shy away from acknowledging the religious roots of casteism. You say, "it was given" a religious angle. As if the religion was not the problem, but someone else who decided to give it a bad name!

Kinnera wrote:I don't know why you pseudos keep insisting on giving it a religious angle and try to go into the middle ages.

I have never displayed pedudo-secularism here or elsewhere. If you want to hurt your own credibility by throwing around inappropriate labels, be my guest.

Kinnera wrote:The jehadis give the violence against infidels a clear religious sanction, without shame and very proud to do so. They justify it in the backdrop of their religion. That's dangerous.

Correct. And their apologists instead say, "this terrorist misunderstands Islam, because according to the Quran killing one innocent person amounts to killing all of humanity." In other words, they try to pretend that Islam does not sanction violence against infidels. Just like you pretending that Hinduism does not have anything to do with casteism, and that people who base their casteism in religion are misreading Hindu scripture!

by Sponsored content