How God found Jindal

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

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.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote: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?

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

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.

Another fine example of hypocrisy -- refusing to acknowledge the problems in your own religion, while whining about others who don't acknowledge the problems in theirs!

it has been acknowledged - many times over by all chaddis here. But you expect them to keep acknowledging and apologizing for the 'misguided" misinterpretation of their ancestors forever and ever and ever...

or you think they have no RIGHT to find fault in other religions ?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote: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?

Been there, done that. https://such.forumotion.com/t22922-why-is-islam-blamed-for-terrorism#154161

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:it has been acknowledged - many times over by all chaddis here.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:or you think they have no RIGHT to find fault in other religions ?

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:it has been acknowledged - many times over by all chaddis here.

Really? Sorry I missed those acknowledgements. Would you please provide links to those acknowledgements by "all chaddis" here? I shall consider three acknowledgments per poster adequate to justify the word "many" that you used. Hell, I will be generous. Just show one acknowledgement per "chaddi" (the label that you used) and I will be satisfied.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:or you think they have no RIGHT to find fault in other religions ?

Show me links to the acknowledgements from all "chaddis" here, and I will stop accusing them of hypocrisy when they find faults in other religions.

Idéfix wrote:

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!

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:it has been acknowledged - many times over by all chaddis here.

Really? Sorry I missed those acknowledgements. Would you please provide links to those acknowledgements by "all chaddis" here? I shall consider three acknowledgments per poster adequate to justify the word "many" that you used. Hell, I will be generous. Just show one acknowledgement per "chaddi" (the label that you used) and I will be satisfied.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:or you think they have no RIGHT to find fault in other religions ?

Show me links to the acknowledgements from all "chaddis" here, and I will stop accusing them of hypocrisy when they find faults in other religions.

You are the google expert, and if you can google links against the chaddis you can do so for all their comments questioning caste.

Kinnera wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

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!

If you want to go on and on and on with your substance less debating, I don't want to be a part of it. Moorkulato vaadinchatam suddha waste. Let me not waste my time.  bye.

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:it has been acknowledged - many times over by all chaddis here.

Really? Sorry I missed those acknowledgements. Would you please provide links to those acknowledgements by "all chaddis" here? I shall consider three acknowledgments per poster adequate to justify the word "many" that you used. Hell, I will be generous. Just show one acknowledgement per "chaddi" (the label that you used) and I will be satisfied.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:or you think they have no RIGHT to find fault in other religions ?

Show me links to the acknowledgements from all "chaddis" here, and I will stop accusing them of hypocrisy when they find faults in other religions.

You are the google expert, and if you can google links against the chaddis you can do so for all their comments questioning caste.

In other words, you have no proof that any "chaddi" has ever acknowledged this, but you breezily claim that all "chaddis" have acknowledged it many times over!

Idéfix wrote: 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!

Idéfix wrote:

If you want to go on and on and on with your substance less debating, I don't want to be a part of it. Moorkulato vaadinchatam suddha waste. Let me not waste my time.  bye.

Ah, namecalling -- that final refuge!

Kinnera wrote:I won't deny it. You do carry a lot of guilt.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Idéfix wrote: 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!

Does Hinduism say anywhere in the Vedas that people (Hindus) should marry only in their own caste (the family label / name pointing to certain ancestral occupation) or that people should get quotas from Govt. in education and jobs on the basis of their caste (ancestral occupation tag)?

Since both these casteist things usually happen (i.e. people marry in their caste for socio-economic convenience and the politicians grant quotas to people in education and jobs etc. for political reasons / votes), without any mention / support from the scriptures, is Hinduism to blame for that?

Kinnera wrote: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.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

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?

Idéfix wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Idéfix wrote: 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!

Does Hinduism say anywhere in the Vedas that people (Hindus) should marry only in their own caste (the family label / name pointing to certain ancestral occupation) or that people should get quotas from Govt. in education and jobs on the basis of their caste (ancestral occupation tag)?

Since both these casteist things usually happen (i.e. people marry in their caste for socio-economic convenience and the politicians grant quotas to people in education and jobs etc. for political reasons / votes), without any mention / support from the scriptures, is Hinduism to blame for that?

Sevaji, let me say right at the outset that up is down, and left is right, if you happen to believe that at the moment. Now, whatever it is that you believe is correct, is correct by virtue of being believed to be correct by you. In other words, you win.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:quotas and reservations are the ultimate appeasement of the majority.

Idéfix wrote: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.

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.^[24]

Idéfix wrote: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.

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.

smArtha wrote:

Idéfix wrote: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.

Wikipedia on Secularism says :
"The term "secularism" was first used by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851"

smArtha wrote:"George Holyoake's 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism as:

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.^[24]

Holyoake held that secularism and secular ethics should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant)."

And this is the kind that the extreme Left, Atheists and Communist regimes propagate and even tried to implement. In this form the State in the guise of 'indifference to religion' actually try to push the religion, its study, practices, research, debate or discussions totally out of all of the public realm and to the private and personal life confined within the home or a close group of individuals. The underlying agenda is definitely Atheistic - to create environments and situations that make Religion/Spirituality/Theology irrelevant in any major sphere of life (not just governance but all of the political/economic/social/academic/intellectual discussions, activities or engagements).

Idéfix wrote:
Communist regimes definitely sought to suppress religion, and push it out of the public sphere entirely. Communism has always been a failure wherever it has been tried, and its aggressive anti-religious fervor is one of several reasons for its failure. I believe the state has no business trying to regulate what people believe. But I disagree that atheists in general, or leftists in general, seek to eliminate religion from the public sphere altogether. My own attitude is that there is no role for religion in government or politics, but religion is an integral part of the human condition and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
Communist regimes definitely sought to suppress religion, and push it out of the public sphere entirely. Communism has always been a failure wherever it has been tried, and its aggressive anti-religious fervor is one of several reasons for its failure. I believe the state has no business trying to regulate what people believe. But I disagree that atheists in general, or leftists in general, seek to eliminate religion from the public sphere altogether. My own attitude is that there is no role for religion in government or politics, but religion is an integral part of the human condition and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Seriously?

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
Communist regimes definitely sought to suppress religion, and push it out of the public sphere entirely. Communism has always been a failure wherever it has been tried, and its aggressive anti-religious fervor is one of several reasons for its failure. I believe the state has no business trying to regulate what people believe. But I disagree that atheists in general, or leftists in general, seek to eliminate religion from the public sphere altogether. My own attitude is that there is no role for religion in government or politics, but religion is an integral part of the human condition and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Seriously?

Yes.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
Communist regimes definitely sought to suppress religion, and push it out of the public sphere entirely. Communism has always been a failure wherever it has been tried, and its aggressive anti-religious fervor is one of several reasons for its failure. I believe the state has no business trying to regulate what people believe. But I disagree that atheists in general, or leftists in general, seek to eliminate religion from the public sphere altogether. My own attitude is that there is no role for religion in government or politics, but religion is an integral part of the human condition and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Seriously?

Yes.

Thanks for the laughs.