Clash of Monotheisms Part 2
Wednesday, 7. July 2010 - 2:21 AM
The rate at which it is going, God’s Own Country will soon be transformed into The Only God’s Own Country. But because Kerala hasn’t reached such an enlightened state of things yet, let’s just call it the Clash of Monotheisms Part 2. In Part 1 of the said clash, two unfortunate girls were kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam, and illegally detained. But now, things have gotten spicier in the historical hub of world spice trade.
…a college lecturer, T J Joseph, was attacked by some unidentified men who [...] waylaid their vehicle and pulled out the lecturer, after bursting explosives to create a scare. While Joseph was being attacked, his mother and sister were warned not to step out of the vehicle. The gang fled the scene after severing his right hand.
The well-educated, professionally-successful, newly-prosperous, noble-cause-supporting, resort-going, and eco-tourist urban middle crowd has blissfully closed his/her eyes to the Islamic underbelly that lies beneath the bourgeoning tourism industry of Kerala.
Lecturer T J Joseph’s “crime” was to frame this question in the BCom exams.
The question paper, for an internal degree exam in March, contained a text taken from an article written by P T Kunjumuhammed, a director of several award-winning films and former CPI(M) legislator.
Referring to his film Garshom, Kunjumuhammed explained in the article that the thread for a scene in the movie, in which the protagonist speaks to God, was picked from his own experience about a madman who used to speak to God. While reproducing the conversation as a passage for punctuation, Joseph replaced the mad man with Muhammed, thus making it seem like a dialogue between God and Muhammed.
The question paper in the original Malayalam can be viewed here.
It’s a miracle that poor T J Joseph is still alive, presently nursing his wounds after a marathon 15-hour surgery. Needless, Muslim organizations of all hues condemned this “heinous” act etc but, the subtext is clear: Joseph deserved this for insulting the Prophet.
Protesting against the question paper, Muslim organisations, particularly the Popular Front of India and Jamaat-e-Islami, had said it was an insult to Prophet Muhammed.
But of course, the Prophet’s name must be mentioned in nothing except the most profound, flattering, and reverential tones. Anything less is an insult deemed fit for Talibanesque punishment by self-appointed guardians of Islam. To be sure, Kerala currently teems with such self-appointed guardians. And this state of affairs is only the logical outcome–given the nature of forces at play–of what transpired over the past few decades.
The rampant Islamization and all its attendant hooliganism-at-will remains a timebomb waiting to explode. Kerala lost the plot the day communists established their stranglehold in the state and perpetuated it with hook and mostly crook. Following the grand dream of establishing Red Paradise in India, it teamed up with Christists and Islamists to “fight” the common enemy, the Hindus the result of which we’re witnessing today. While it once commanded huge majorities, the Left in Kerala has begun to depend heavily on the support of all kinds of thugs and declared terror-enablers to form a government and stay in power. This includes teaming up with the Kerala Muslim League, the direct descendant of the same Muslim League that said, less than 100 years ago, that Muslims couldn’t stay in a Hindu-dominated country and sliced off that portion of India that is Pakistan today. Then there’s Abdul Nasser Madani, the man allegedly behind the 1998 Coimbatore serial blasts, the 2008 Bangalore blasts, is suspected of having links with LeT, and has served prison for 8 years, booked for sedition. This man heads the PDP, which has an alliance with the ruling LDF. Kerala has today become God’s own laboratory of Islamic terror. The SATP website provides us this intelligence (I provide just a sample below):
[March 17, Kannur & Ernakulam] 185 people from Kerala were reportedly selected by the LeT and provided preliminary training at camps conducted in various centres. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the terror link to Kerala obtained this information from three Kashmiri youngsters, identified as Fiyaz Ahammed (26), Sajad Ahammed Reshi alias Hanzulla and Shabbir Ahammed Tali alias Abu Saquib (20). These three youngsters took part in the terror camp organised by the LeT in Kupwara and Dorusa forest areas in Kashmir during October 2008, along with a five-member team from Kerala. The Lashkar camp had 17 members, including seven Pakistanis and three Kashmiris. Yasin, Fayaz, Shakeer alias Rahim and Fayiz who were killed in encounters with the Police in Kashmir and Abdul Jabbar, who had escaped the scene, constituted the militants’ team sent from Kerala to Kashmir. “The Malayalis joined the camp in the second week of September. Shakeer alias Rahim was their leader. He could speak Urdu,” said Fiaz Ahammed. Shabbir Ahammed Tali told the Police that 180 more youngsters were waiting in Kerala after the preliminary training to join the Jihad. “One Ustad had indoctrinated them,” said Tali.
[Feb 27, Kottayam] Two suspected Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) cadres, identified as Shibili and Hafeez Hussain, who were arrested for reportedly attending a secret training camp held by the outfit in 2007, were remanded to a 15-day judicial custody. About 40 cases were pending against the duo in various parts of the country, including in Gujarat, Indore in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Malegaon in Maharashtra. Nearly 40 SIMI cadres had participated in the camp for about three days, the Police mentioned, adding that till date, ten cadres were arrested in this connection.
I don’t need to separately comment on the extent of penetration and network these worthies have managed to establish.
To be sure, Kerala is not alone. It has its “sister” state, West Bengal for company, where the Communist government has both teamed up with the Islamists and allowed massive influxes of illegal Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants. This influx has almost overnight, altered the demographics of several towns bordering Bangladesh. The conclusive fact being that Communist governments in India are powerless to counter the brutal forces that teaming up with Islamists inevitably unleashes. What was once a mere electoral/rhetorical gimmick is today an evil that is both indispensable and a force that they cannot fight against–like riding the tiger and all that.
T J Joseph’s case, like those Love Jihad cases, wouldn’t have received such widespread media coverage if not for the powerful Christian lobby. It would’ve gone the way of the Marad massacre and numerous other Love Jihad cases where victims were Hindu girls–buried in an obscure column on Page 5. T J Joseph had apologized on an earlier occasion for “insulting” the Prophet but this time around, some extra-devout servant of the Prophet had decided enough was enough. Despite this coverage, it is anybody’s guess which direction this case will head. The fact that Christian fundamentalists like John Dayal, all the way up to Ratzinger..err..the Holy See have pressed the self-mute button shows the Muslims have bet their money on what has historically worked for them: brute force. Fear of death is infinitely more potent than fear of God.
The same applies to the cocktail-sipping and self-righteous secular protest-mongers. Why aren’t they courageously taking up cudgels on behalf of poor T J Joseph like they did on behalf of Qatar’s newest star citizen? Where’s that fire that they once directed against the French President because he said disgusting things about the oh-so-chic burqa? Given all this evidence, why aren’t they calling Kerala as the Islamic terror laboratory the way they labelled Gujarat as the “Hindutva” laboratory? Will Sagarika Ghose stand up and condemn these barbarians as “sullying the fair name of the Religion of Peace” the way she routinely chastises Hindutva fanatics (sic) for “appropriating the fair name of Hinduism?”
However, I apportion a large part of the blame on the expanding middle and upper middle class for blissfully closing its eyes to the reality terror show unfolding before our eyes almost on a daily basis. How did we come to this pass where this class places higher priority over distributing panties to a third-rate, & small-time wannabe politician over being watchful about the more real dangers that it faces? What will it take for them to wake up? A family member’s hand similarly chopped off?
Our apathy will cost us dearly.
Tags: Commentary, India, Indian Politics, Indian Secularism, Islam, Islamic Terror, Islam-Watch, Jihad, Kerala, Kerala Politics, Kerala-Islamic Terror Lab, Love Jihad, Media Watch, P T Joseph, P T Joseph Hand Chopped Off, Pseudosecularism, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Secularism, Terrorism, War on Communism
7. July 2010 - 6:10 AM
Let’s not make a distinction between hindu fanatics and muslim fanatics. They’re all fanatics. I’m as much disgusted over the hand cutting incident as I am over any other form of bigoted violence. There are no “Islamic Terrorists” and “Hindu Terrorists” – there are only terrorists.
I’m an atheist and don’t believe in god. So I have no reason to prefer one religion over another. M F Husain’s hounding out of the country by hindu fanatics is as bad as Salman Rushdie’s hounding by the Islamic community.
7. July 2010 - 7:41 AM
Calling out the uber secularists in a post is not enough. Many of the “self-righteous secular protest-mongers” are on twitter and their attention should be drawn to the post. I agree with the general apathy shown by the burgeoning middle class. IMO, its related to many aspects whose roots can be found in the high socio-economic disparity amongst the two religions. For eg. most Hindus in general strive to do better than their neighbor in terms of education, money etc. Percentage of Muslim population in India is not a small number but we do not see their representation in higher education or even in the industry not because of lack of opportunities but due to a negligent attitude to education in general amongst the Muslims. The disparity has resulted in the middle and the upper middle class being insular to the ground realities. Another reason for the apathy could be related to the absence of congregation related activities in the Hindu religion. Apart from a few festivals like Ganpati, Durga puja or Gokulashtmi there is no activity that requires congregation amongst Hindus. This is radically different from Muslims or Christians. Now, there are many positive and negative aspects of organized congregation that I do not wish to delve into, but lets not forget that one of the reasons that Bal Gangadhar Tilak started the saarvajanik gaheshutsav primarily to bring people together so that they can have an outlet to talk @ Swaraj.
7. July 2010 - 7:49 AM
Kerala protected and developed many aspects of Indian heritage during past millennium- Kerala School of Mathematics, Ayurveda, Kalaripayattu, etc., being some of them. There have also been exceptional people such as Sri Narayana Guru, Chattambi Swamigal, Swami Chinmayananda, and lately Mata Amritanandamayi from that state. That state also has the unique Sabarimala Ayyappa temple where people of all religions and caste visit, after first visiting a mosque of his muslim friend Vavar or Babar!
However, as per the wikipedia link, today about 25% people there are muslims, 20% are christians. It can be safely assumed that another 25% are communist atheists and a 5% are secular progressive (read capitalistic) atheists. That leaves just 25% population as non-adherents to western cults, who may be called ‘hindus’.
No wonder it is now called ‘Goonda’s own country’ by some people, and is known for exporting trained terrorists to rest of India and labour to Gulf countries.
How did Kerala happen to be in this state ?
Why did that society, one of the last bastions of indic culture few centuries back, degrade in this fashion, that only about 25% people remain adherents to indic way of living ?
Could it be due to consanguine matrimonial relationships (sagotra marriages) that was apparently the norm in that state in recent past, which may have deteriorated the cultural mettle of the society ?
7. July 2010 - 8:23 AM
It is interesting to understand why people like Mr Jal Park, above, are quick to express outrage against something called ‘hindu fanatics’.
If you ask who is ‘hindu fanatic’ ? it would be difficult to answer, for the word ‘hindu’ itself is an import, originated apparently by persians, literally meant to denote people living on the banks of Indus river.
Now that part of the world is called Pakistan.
So logically ‘hindu fanatic’ should mean a fanatic Pakistani.
However, this is not the reason Shri Jal Park and such like him equate ‘hindu fanatic’ with ‘muslim fanatic’.
The reason is more involved.
The education system that these people underwent never allowed them to grow respect for their culture. It deracinated them, cut off their cultural moorings, making them seek refuge in the porus shadow of ‘secularism’, ‘atheism’ and ‘modernity’.
In a world where others around them, the muslims and christians, vehemently express their culturelessness and impose upon the rest of the people, frustration and anger naturally erupt within.
But what do these rootless people do ? The bogus shadow of ‘secularism’ and ‘atheism’ can do little to abate the frustration rising within.
And they dare not express their true feelings upon the cultureless christians and muslims, for there is no saying what those brutes would do. While John Dayal and their ilk, flush with American evangelical funds, may hire maoists to do their bidding, the likes of Madani, flush with Saudi money, may not even hire maoists.
So, these people, bottled up with frustrations, and low in enduring capacity, vent it upon the easiest target, the non-existant one, the ‘hindu fanatic’, which being non-existant, there is no threat of back lash to fear.
Thus these ‘secular’ ‘atheists’ equate every depravity of western cultists to their creation- the ‘hindu fanatics’, and safely condemn them to their hearts’ content.
They also deride the indian culture, as they are brought up indoctrinated to feel awe towards western culturelessness, to worship the western ways.
So the natural and safe way to let off steam for all the ills of western society is to transfer it to the native culture and deride it, which culture having no ego hang ups does not retaliate.
However, this behaviour, though relief-giving in short term, is unpardonable, because it is against truth, adharmik.
namaste
7. July 2010 - 9:11 AM
This is a very good article published in 2006.
The Dangers of Monotheism in the Age of Globalization
By Jean-Pierre Lehmann
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5211
7. July 2010 - 9:12 AM
“There are no “Islamic Terrorists””
Please do yourself a favor and read about Islam more. You have no idea about Islam and the Muslim mindset.
The conditioning that makes you think that a religion like Islam can be neatly tucked away into a corner of one’s life is the result of your Kaffir (might I say) upbringing.
For starters, visit: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
7. July 2010 - 10:06 AM
The trouble with monotheism is that it is too centralised , similar to centralised communism or socialism. Polytheism is highly decentralised, which saves a lot of time and money and leads to each other working to the tenets of the local community. Paganism gives huge importance to nature, which has been pillaged and plundered right thru ages, by humans asserting that they themselves are the superior beings to all living creatures. I have read the above article by Jean Marie Lehmann and saved it in my files. It has good points, but leaves the human ego unchecked, but gives credence to ideas, philosophy and religion of India.
7. July 2010 - 12:13 PM
For Bhagwad’s information MFH left for Qatar with all his physical digits intact whereas there is still a fatwa on Rushdie’s head. The easiest way out for Bhagwad’s ilk for justifying their stand is they are atheist but you will never see them criticize Islam they way they do Sanatan Dharma
Am sure if such pseudo secs where alive during Mahabharat they would have termed Duryodhana’s death as a fake encounter.
7. July 2010 - 2:47 PM
The media Lions/Lambs are silent. No surprises here. Our media wallas are bullies and they pick on the weakest(Hindus). If it earns them brownie points from the Congress party, it is all the more reason to indulge in Hindu bashing. I am not surprised that NDTV completely sanitized the report and quietly buried the news. Ofcourse there were no banshees screaming ‘Islamutva laboratory of Kerala’.
This nonchalance needs to be compared with the staged event with Muthalik and other stings. I hope BJP wallas learn some PR skills and interview their interviewer and take them to task for their skulduggery.
7. July 2010 - 3:31 PM
@Jal Park
What’s your point? Where are Hindu terrorists? In the face of such terror a described above, raising the bogey of Hindu terrorists just to equalize the score – Mr.Bhagwad Jal Park, either you are blind or you have an agenda.
Where are the ‘Hindu terrorists’? Just some cooked up cases, with nothing to substantiate. Mr. Jal, the next question is why will there be a ‘Hindu Terrorists’? What is their mission? What is their ultimate aim? Who heads them?
In case of terrorists there is a cohesive mission – like spreading Islam or Christianity. This is the nature of these religions. They find it their duty to impose their faith on others. Because this is the nature of their faith. It is like that only.
While, on the other hand, Hinduism thinks that you can reach God just by being good and purifying your soul – you can do it any which you deem proper. You might be practicing some other faith, it doesn’t matter. For, God is ultimately One.
But, these other monotheistic religions think that only their Prophet is The Way – this is the origin of fanaticism, and hence the Terrorism – for when you become fanatic – all means are sanctified. Because they are for the Holy Cause.
But the Hinduism does not sanction such violence. So even if someone practices violence, it is not sanctioned by Hindu faith hence not sanctified by the religion. So, as someone said above – by definition, there cannot be a ‘Hindu Terrorist’.
This is the strength as well as the weakness of the Hindu Religion that there is no central controlling authority which gives direction to all. Which is very visible is the case of Christians – The Vatican. And not so invisible in case of Islam.
So if, without understanding your own religion, and the mindset of the opposite parties – whose ultimate aim is to reduce your community to minority and then to dominate you, and then to annihilate you – if you are happy in your ignorance – and there are many people like you – all the product of our education system – then God save us all!
I request you to read Arun Shourie’s ‘Eminent Historians’.
7. July 2010 - 4:35 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park,
>> There are no “Islamic Terrorists” and “Hindu Terrorists” – there are only terrorists.
No Bhagwad… No… There are no “Terrorists” and “non-Terrorists”, there are only humans !!!
BTW, could you name a few Hindu terrorists who were convicted in India or elsewhere in the world? (Just to keep myself up-to-date)
7. July 2010 - 7:20 PM
[start whining]
But but but Sandeep…what about Muthalik and the pub violence he unleashed? You never criticize him!! [big pout]
[end whining]
/sarcasm
7. July 2010 - 7:36 PM
I don’t think the attackers meant only to cut off the hand of the professor. They would have wanted to kill him but missed aim. Because in Islam the punishment for “insulting” prophet is murder. But things were not this bad in Kerala. Muslim fanatics are getting bolder to attack people and curtail freedom of expression because media and politicians are not willing to stop them.
7. July 2010 - 7:47 PM
@To who think I’m supporting the Islamic religion over others:
I don’t care about either the islamic religion or any other. For example, this statement:
“you will never see them criticize Islam they way they do Sanatan Dharma”
I’m not criticizing islam because I don’t care about islam. I only care about crazy people with knives or guns in their hands. I don’t want to waste time talking about what a person has in his head. Only what’s in his hands. I have many hindu friends and some muslim friends. None of them are violent. So obviously I’m not going to paint everyone in a certain religion with the same brush because that would be dishonest.
I think I made it clear in my comment that there are NO hindu fanatics OR muslim fanatics. What a person’s religion is doesn’t concern me and is none of my business.
There are crazy people like Praveen Togadia and Muthalik who advocate engaging in violence. I don’t care what you call them. Crazy people are crazy people and I could care less if they’re muslim, hindu, sikhs, or whatever…
7. July 2010 - 7:51 PM
bhagwad jal park
you are a fuckin faggot, period
7. July 2010 - 7:57 PM
Well said Sandeep.
The guy purposefully named his character as Mohammed, to prove superiority of Jesus. So this is really a crusade between Christians and Muslims. Hindus should stay away from this fight between soldiers of two equally extremist monotheistic faiths.
7. July 2010 - 8:44 PM
Well,I am happy that this incident proved the best places for so called Christian minority to flourish are the states where Hindutva laboratories are set up.I don’t think any Christian would ever imagine of a such a thing happening in Gujarat or Karnataka where the commies and congies are swept under the carpet.
By the way,what Bible dictates have come true – “what you reap is what you sow “.Christians sowed the seeds of communal hatred in Kerala,and they have started to reap it through their Jihadi counter-parts.
7. July 2010 - 9:06 PM
@ Unni
I’m astonished at your happiness in calling down violence on an entire group simply based on religion.
Even if we assume that what you say is correct (and I’m not saying that because I don’t know the facts), let me ask you this: Do you believe that even one innocent person should be harmed? So when you say “Christians”, do you mean all Christians, or just a few? If you say all Christians, are you saying that every single Christian person is “guilty” as per your standards?
If not, I think it’s unfair to tar everyone with the same brush. What of children who have no guilt? Are you happy to see them harmed? What about Christians who quietly live their lives without looking here or there? Do you want them to suffer also? Are they so different from you that you cannot see that they’re just human beings?
7. July 2010 - 9:30 PM
“I’m not criticizing islam because I don’t care about islam. I only care about crazy people with knives or guns in their hands. I don’t want to waste time talking about what a person has in his head.”
Crazy people do not get knives or guns in their hands without their brains(head). Some crazy people act holier than thou. Here the incident is not about Muthlik or any other Hindu big mouth. So stop trying to deflect the serious crime by bringing in irrelavent inane issues. Your diversionary tactics are quite clear and blatant.
Meanwhile, we will talk about the motivations of the assailants irrespective of your protestations. What is really dishonest is avoiding the issue/ideology of motivation.
7. July 2010 - 9:43 PM
Hello Unni,
You raise a very valid point and it needs to be debated. After all,
1. Muslims agree Jesus predated Mohammed
2. Also, Muslims and Christians are united in their opposition to (and conversion of) Hindus.
3. Commies are friends of both Christians and Muslims.
4. Catholic-commies especially are thick pals with Islamists.
5. Commies are ruling Kerala
All in all, the setting is perfect for Commie-Christian-Muslim bonhomie. Progressive milk and human rights honey must have been flowing in the streets of Thiruvananthapuram. But ….. commies, Christians and Muslims are killing off each other there!!!! What went wrong?
Hello Comrade Park,
I browsed through your extremely interesting blog. Internet records say you created your domain in Feb 2009 but your archives say you’ve been blogging there since 2006. Curious to know how you pulled off this magic. You have some interesting ideas on harming innocents, though. We should talk more about it.
7. July 2010 - 10:05 PM
@Malavika
“Crazy people do not get knives or guns in their hands without their brains(head)”
Agreed. Though of course, following a religion does not automatically make everyone crazy. If this was true, I should not be able to name even one non-crazy person in that religion. I can easily find more than one person. And I don’t think you’re going to disagree with me over this. Let me know if you need more clarification.
“Some crazy people act holier than thou”
Agreed.
“Here the incident is not about Muthlik or any other Hindu big mouth.”
I agree that the incident referred to in the post is not about a “Hindu big mouth.” (Though again I have to wonder why you used the word “Hindu.” Just say “Big mouth.” Whether he’s a Hindu or not is not my concern.) In fact, I don’t even personally know ONE crazy Hindu!
“So stop trying to deflect the serious crime by bringing in irrelavent inane issues.”
This is not true. I’m not deflecting here. My point is that crazy people exist irrespective of religion. If your objection is that I used the names of hindu leaders and not muslim ones, please rest assured that I only rattled off the first names that came to my mind. I know there are idiots like Darul Uloom Deoband also. I add him to my list of crazy people. Unfortunately, people like Togadia and Muthalik hog the news so I know about them! There are many others I don’t know about, but I know they exist. So I apologize if you got the feeling that I was targeting only “Hindu Crazies.” Let me make it clear that I’m targeting all crazies.
@OT
No magic
I was blogging at bhagwad.blogspot.com. Then I wanted my own domain for my freelance writing business and so I also began to host my blog on it. I simply imported my previous blogspot posts into it…
7. July 2010 - 10:57 PM
“I only rattled off the first names that came to my mind.”
Exactly, this is where your bias and blindspots show. Quote where VHP leader incited violence and hatred.
You deliberately completely ignored supari of Danish cartoonist by a ‘secular’ politician of a particular religion. Perhaps, you should open your eyes and be aware of events. Here is one more
“New Delhi: About 200 Jihadists led by one Salim Javed and armed with sticks, stones and swords raising their war cry of “Allah O Akbar” laid siege to a house under S.R. Nagar Police Station at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh at 10.15 p.m. on Friday, May 28, 2010 to launch a pre-planned attack on Dr. Pravinbhai Togadia, Secretary General of Vishva Hindu Parishad. Dr Togadiya was at the house of a VHP sympathiser for dinner. Dr Togadiya was on the Hyderabad leg of his routine All Bharat tour conducting peaceful organizational programmes. He had no public programme at Hyderabad city – he came there only in the evening after attending an organizational camp programme far away from the city.”
7. July 2010 - 11:10 PM
It is a fine write up.
However, the very first comment upset me quite a lot.
Now, I do understand that there are people who do not understand the difference between the teachings of different religions. To paint the victims in the same brush as the perpetrators, it heartbreaking. It appears to me that we are fighting a losing battle in our quest to promote awareness about the dangers of Islam. So far, the traitorous MSM has succeeded in its anti India campaign to most of the population. As people have pointed out, people like Bhagwad Jal Park need to read more about Islam and what it stands for from the original sources, not from what the treasonous MSM and the sickularists want him to learn.
People like him and opinions like his are part of the problem, they offer no solutions!
7. July 2010 - 11:13 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park @Unni
I agree we should not be happy for attack on Professor Joseph but why did he name his character Mohammed? He wanted to show Jesus Christ was more respectable than Mohammed? This is medieval crusades all over again and hard to say if there is truly any “innocent” victim here.
7. July 2010 - 11:33 PM
@ Malavika
I’m quite willing to be educated about my blind spots. I’m sure I have many since there are millions of violent incidents taking place everyday and I really can’t protest against all of them. I can only protest against those which are immediately in front of me first. I’m sure you do the same.
I hope however, you’re not implying that one wrong excuses another.
“You deliberately completely ignored supari of Danish cartoonist by a ‘secular’ politician”
What makes you think I did anything “deliberately?” Are you aware that I supported the “Everybody Draw Mohammed” campaign? We also all made fun of the idiot who issued a fatwa against those engaging in pre marital sex. I’m against violence by any religion and I don’t care what the religion is.
“Quote where VHP leader incited violence and hatred.”
Again – why are you so interested in VHP leaders? Why does it matter whether they’re a VHP leader or Mother Teresa? Please do a google search or a youtube search if you want examples of people preaching violence. I’m not going to give a link here and spread even more hatred.
@Polite
Violence has been carried out in the name of every religion since humans existed. Under the right circumstances, all religions are dangerous.
“It appears to me that we are fighting a losing battle in our quest to promote awareness about the dangers of Islam.”
Are you saying that there is not even one muslim person who is not violent? Maybe you haven’t met them, but rest assured, they do exist. Are you angry with these people as well?
“As people have pointed out, people like Bhagwad Jal Park need to read more about Islam and what it stands for from the original sources, not from what the treasonous MSM and the sickularists want him to learn.”
I don’t care about what a fairy book tells me. I don’t believe in any god no matter which religion.
@Anand
“why did he name his character Mohammed?”
I’m not sure. First of all, he wasn’t very smart – knowing that fanatics exist here. But on a matter of principle, I see no harm in making fun of Mohammed. People who are adults are expected to not lose their heads when something offends them. If people want to protest, let them write a book, sing a song, paint a picture, give speeches, news interviews or whatever. But if they so much as touch someone, they need to be shot like rabid dogs.
7. July 2010 - 11:36 PM
Anand, are you saying it is justified to chop his hands off because he called his character Mohammed. Sorry, leave such justifications to Taliban
8. July 2010 - 12:02 AM
@varghese
I am not saying any such thing. Before putting label on me like “Taliban” try to understand what I am saying. Centuries ago Muslims and Christians fought religious wars. They were called crusades. Christians won and dominated the world leaving Muslims relatively powerless. Now after oil wealth Muslims think their time has come so crusades have started again. 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan. middle-east — these are all part of the new wars. All over the world wherever there are Muslims and Christians living side by side there are battles going on. So far In India this was not happening because both have common opponent in Hindus. But in Kerala the situation is different from rest of India because Hindus are already weak politically and Muslims & Christians numerically strong. So the first Indian entry point for crusades is Kerala. This is the larger picture in which we have to see the attack on Joseph. Did he not know the symbolism of Allah talking to Mohammed? He provoked Muslims who took the bait and retaliated. Now all I am saying this battle is none of Hindus business and we should not see “freedom of expression” and other such things here. If you think asking Hindus to keep away from a quarrel that cannot do them any harm is taliban then I am proud to be taliban.
@Bhagwad Jal Park
Of course you are right and lets hope Kerala police catch the attackers and punish them. On “mohammed” name I don’t think you know how Muslims treat it and if you live in Kerala you will know Christians also know that it is provocative to use it like Jospeh did. He was a college lecturer not a village idiot.
8. July 2010 - 12:16 AM
@Anand
I know how muslims revere mohammed. However, that should not mean that the rest of us should not do what we like with it.
“Now all I am saying this battle is none of Hindus business and we should not see “freedom of expression” and other such things here.”
Whenever harm is done to one person, everyone else must get involved. “Hindu”, “Muslim” etc are artificial distinctions. We are all humans first. Everything else comes later. If you just allow other communities to suffer injustices merely because you don’t belong to that community, then soon you’ll be the next one targeted and no one will come to help you. There’s this famous poem by Martin Niemöller
“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Also, I don’t really care how “provoked” the muslims were. I don’t care how offended they were. That does not give them the right to engage in violence. No amount of “provocation” can ever lead to violence. If they’re offended, they can offend the person back – by writing an editorial in the newspaper, or making fun of him with cartoons. Violence however, is simply unacceptable in a civilized society. This is the single most important lesson that we need to take away from this.
8. July 2010 - 2:44 AM
“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
Speaking of this poem, the situation in Pakistan does quite remind me of this
They came first for the Hindus
Then they came for the Christians
Then they came for the atheists
Then they came for the Ahmadis
Then they came for the Sufis
etc, etc
8. July 2010 - 2:53 AM
“I’m not criticizing islam because I don’t care about islam. I only care about crazy people with knives or guns in their hands. I don’t want to waste time talking about what a person has in his head. Only what’s in his hands. ”
This is one of the most foolish statements I have ever come across. Does this person think that people one day wake up, then go to the store and pick up a knife or gun and go on a rampage? Or that all these suicide bombings are the result of mere impulse, without thought or ideology?
What rubbish. The vast majority of human action has behind it certain thoughts, ideas, whether good or bad, luminous or evil, or in between. It is important to study these ideas in order to transform or change the action.
8. July 2010 - 3:16 AM
@Agneya
“It is important to study these ideas in order to transform or change the action.”
I quite agree with you. Unfortunately, the only result of the “study of these ideas” is: “He/She belongs to xyz religion. That is why xyz religion is the cause of everything!” If that was the case, every single person belonging to that religion should be crazy. But that’s clearly not the case. In fact, it’s a very small minority of people who are “crazy.”
Look at “Polite’s” comment to see the truth of what I’m saying…The real reason of course has to do with intolerance and not any particular religion.
So I’ll agree with you and start caring about what people think if you agree that we must look at things other than just what religion a person belongs to. Deal?
8. July 2010 - 4:55 AM
Also, our society (and most of the world) doesn’t punish “thought crimes.” We only punish actual acts. So we can’t point fingers at someone and say “he/she thinks this/follows this religion.” We can only look at actual acts committed and punish people for that.
That’s why I said “I don’t want to waste time talking about what a person has in his head. Only what’s in his hands.”
8. July 2010 - 5:08 AM
I didn’t realize caring about what people think is to be a matter of quid pro quo. This is something you should be doing irrespective of the views of others. Having said that, I do agree that we should look at other things than just the religion a person belongs too, as there are other factors determining a person’s thought (for instance, Moroccans are not blowing themselves up in the streets of Rabat). Nevertheless, that does not mean we automatically assume that religion has nothing to do with violence or intolerance, or cannot greatly influence the mentality of the masses. To figure out if a particular religion, such as Islam, does engender an intolerant mentality, one has to study that religion. I recommend that you personally study the Islamic scripture to see if it might, just possibly, play a role in the creation of an atmosphere of hatred and intolerance.
8. July 2010 - 5:24 AM
Also, our society (and most of the world) doesn’t punish “thought crimes.” We only punish actual acts. So we can’t point fingers at someone and say “he/she thinks this/follows this religion.” We can only look at actual acts committed and punish people for that.
That’s why I said “I don’t want to waste time talking about what a person has in his head. Only what’s in his hands.”
—————————————————————–
This is a great example of the sophistry of indian “intellectuals.” This is a commentator on an internet website where ideas are exchanged, discussed, debated – i.e, a site for intellectuals. Yet he speaks as if this were the Headquarters of Interpol – let us only talk of the act committed, what data have we received from the crime scene? Who are the suspects? What are their alibis?
The police are the ones who talk about what are in the person’s hands; intellectuals talk about what was in the person’s head at the time. What was he thinking? Why did he do this? Did his religion inspire him?
If that involves an analysis of Islam, and its likely deconstruction, then so. be. it.
8. July 2010 - 6:02 AM
Motive behind- http://estheppan.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/motive-behind/
8. July 2010 - 6:49 AM
@Agneya
I’m with you on this. I’m perfectly willing to discuss whether or not a particular religion (including Islam) predisposes people to violence. Of course, as an atheist one of my positions is that all religions predispose people to violence under the right conditions. Christianity for example has caused a lot of suffering in this world even though the New Testament specifically opposes violence. What does that mean? It means that the actions of followers need have absolutely no connection with what the religion says.
Having said that, I agree that it’s fruitful to analyze a religion’s edicts to find out which religion increases people’s chances of violence.
But think for a moment what possible solution we can reach. Suppose we find out that a certain religion “A” has a higher chance of making people violent. What are we supposed to do? We obviously can’t say that everyone following that religion is violent because out of two thousand followers, only 5 may become violent. So to judge two thousand people based on just 5 people is grotesquely unfair.
What other solution can we come up with? I’m sure you’ll agree that mass genocide is not the answer. Neither can we prevent people from following that religion because people have the right to think whatever they want as long as they don’t harm another. And parents invariably teach their religion to their children as is their right. In addition, banning a religion is unfair to the vast majority of non violent followers.
That is why I’m not hopeful about anything meaningful coming out a discussion regarding whether or not a particular religion encourages violence. In the first place, such a discussion would quickly degenerate into a shouting match and I’ll eat my iPod if a consensus is ever reached. But even if a miracle occurs and we do reach a consensus, there’s nothing we can do about it – no actionable plan will be fair and just.
Therefore, my opinion is that the only solution is to punish people based on what they do – not on what they think. It’s the only plan that is fair to everyone involved, including the victims. If you can come up with a better practical solution, I would be most interested to hear it.
8. July 2010 - 7:01 AM
@Agneya
I also recognize that this is a place where ideas are discussed. But I’ve read so many knee jerk reactions here and so many sweeping statements, that I feel compelled to provide a counter balance.
For example, one of the statements was: “Now after oil wealth Muslims think their time has come so crusades have started again”
What is this? Which muslims? Every single Muslim in the world? As long as we keep grouping people together and imposing attributes on the whole group that are not shared by everyone, we will reach illogical conclusions. And what’s more, there is no way to group people scientifically that will provide 100% accurate results. And we need 100% accurate results to ensure that no innocent person suffers. Every life is valuable.
Since we can’t find such a system of grouping, we can only use the metric of actions which are observable and foolproof.
8. July 2010 - 8:37 AM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
Neimoller is an idiot. Look at this: “THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists”. Does the fool know how many millions of people communists killed? In West Bengal the other day they derailed a train and killed off a coach-ful of people. Any person who paints communists as victims needs to have his head examined, if it is not full of fanaticism already. Moreover, you are also making a false analogy. You talked of one ideology targeting others. I am talking of two fanatical ideologies targeting others and also each other. If they come after Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism, I do not prefer to remain silent. But if they target each other, I will take a ringside seat and watch with interest. Suppose Nazism and Communism fought each other to attrition in WW-2? Then there would have been no communism left to kill millions of people!! The world would have been a better place. I am a Hindu and I speak for Hindu interests. Can’t help if you have a problem with it. You don’t care for fanatical ideologies like Islam you said. Perhaps you don’t care for Nazism and Communism also. Your choice, feel free to protect your interests, though they clearly are intolerant of others. Likewise, feel free to use “Mohammed” any way you like on your blog, I am not stopping you. (I doubt you will use it though!) I am just saying that when such use is part of a revived crusade between two extremist ideologies, Hindu fools should not rush to make a “freedom of expression” issue out of it.
8. July 2010 - 10:56 AM
Hello Comrade Jal Park,
That explains it man. The seeming timing mismatch of your blog posts is wonderfully explained just as I thought it would be. Though if I were you I’d have retained blogspot also, for record’s sake. Anyways, as an aside, where in India is Stanburg?
Incognito,
>>Motive behind- http://estheppan.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/motive-behind/
Great post. Speaking of motives:
If a person claims that good actions result in a vacuum, without being preceded by good thoughts, you don’t engage him “intellectually”. You’d think the guy is a fit case to be taken away by men in white coats. For such a claim defies common sense (and the need to instill values in children). The common-sense-defying nature of this extraordinary claim makes us suspect that the person making the claim perhaps also believes that the moon is made of blue cheese — hence the urge to reach the phone to call the mental hospital.
But what if a dude claims that evil results in vacuum too, with no causal relationship with dangerous thoughts? What if, for example, a guy claims that it is acceptable for people to think that it’s ok to rape 5-year olds, and that granting such thoughts legitimacy will have no influence on the incidence of pedophilia in society? Then you no longer are sure you are confronting an asylum case. You tend to suspect that you are talking to dangerous pedophile.
8. July 2010 - 11:02 AM
Bhagwad Jal Park said:
@Agneya
“I’m with you on this. I’m perfectly willing to discuss whether or not a particular religion (including Islam) predisposes people to violence.”
You had a change of heart and now agree to discuss motivations. That is a good start.
“Of course, as an atheist one of my positions is that all religions predispose people to violence under the right conditions. ”
You are wrong,your assertion is NOT backet by any evidence. I invoke Christopher Hitchens rule and dismiss your assertion completely. Ideology motivates people, therefore you do/did not see Buddhist/Hindu suicide bombers of backlash against Muslims in Buddhist countries when Bamiyan Buddhas were demolished.
That is why Hindus have been genocided in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir. Meanwhile Muslim population is increasing in India. You have the nerve to make idiotic assumption that ‘all religions are equally predisposed to violence’.
You are a good example of closed minded ideologue masquerading as reasonable atheist. And you are not fooling anyone here.
8. July 2010 - 11:09 AM
Anand said:
“I am just saying that when such use is part of a revived crusade between two extremist ideologies, Hindu fools should not rush to make a “freedom of expression” issue out of it.”
True. However this event is a good stick to discredit shamless establishment Media, which keeps carping about ‘Freedom of Speech’ ad nauseam.
8. July 2010 - 11:12 AM
@ Anand
Neimoller is not a fool. We are not sure about you. Do find out who Neimoller is and when he said the qoute first before calling him a fool.
8. July 2010 - 12:16 PM
@darklord
I use my rational faculties to decide if a person is a fool. I don’t rely on “authorities”. I suggest you do likewise.
Thought experiment: if the Axis powers had won the war, some other Moller would have written this poem:
They came first for the Nazis,
I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Nazi
Then they came for the Fascists,
I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Fascist
Then they came for me,
but nobody was left to speak for me..etc etc
“Authorities” would be hailing this Moller as the greatest poet to rock civilization.
That “poem”‘s seeming legitimacy depends on our recognition of Nazism as evil. Neimoller failed to see communism as evil, and instead, painted a halo around communists (and trade unionists!) . No wonder communists are the ones who tout this “poem” most, not Jews, who the leftwingers hate anyway.
8. July 2010 - 12:21 PM
My Dear Friend
You have called me “flush with funds”. I wish I were, because I would have spent a portion of them to sue you in courts all over the world.
I do not get funds from any country, US included, or organisation, RSS and BJP included.
This is just for your information, and for theinformation of your readers..
God bless you.
8. July 2010 - 12:34 PM
Ah, such colors! Communists “teamed up with Christists”.
So the Church was not trying to out-throw the first democratically elected Communist government right from the beginning and it does not continue not to miss any chance to blame Communists for every single issue.
So there is not a sign board in a Church in Ollur, in Thrissur, that says “Communist government fired bullets to the Church here”.
So the Liberation Struggle lead by the Church and Angamalay police firings did not happen.
So the Church had not declared Communists as the greater threat even when Christians were being hacked by VHP in Orissa.
So so.. and so much for so.
8. July 2010 - 1:54 PM
@Anand
“I use my rational faculties to decide if a person is a fool. I don’t rely on “authorities”. I suggest you do likewise.”
We have clear doubt on these rational faculties that you talk of. Your comments seem to point to lack of them. You don’t need authority to find about Neimoller. You need to learn to use google and wikipedia.
“That poem’s seeming legitimacy depends on our recognition of Nazism as evil.”
Which you contest???
“Neimoller failed to see communism as evil, and instead, painted a halo around communists (and trade unionists!) .”
No halo painted. Neimoller objection is against state authority to punish citizens for beliefs, he is not worshiping communists/trade unionists. The poem is based on actual actions by Nazis not Neimoller delusions.
“No wonder communists are the ones who tout this “poem” most, not Jews, who the leftwingers hate anyway.”
There were enough jews who were communists. People across political inclinations qoute variants of this poem.
8. July 2010 - 4:03 PM
@darklord
>>We have clear doubt on these rational faculties that you talk of.
“We” who? As “lord” perhaps you’re speaking on behalf of your subjects
>>You don’t need authority to find about Neimoller. You need to learn to use google and wikipedia.
You seem not to have heard of the proof method called “Proof by Authority”. Since Wikipedia is a trusted authority for you, from the same source: “(Proof by Authority) is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position”
>>“That poem’s seeming legitimacy depends on our recognition of Nazism as evil.” Which you contest???
Congratulations for figuring that out, despite my best efforts to obfuscate my sympathies
>>No halo painted.
Ah. So you don’t think it big deal that the “poem” goes out of its way to equate communists with Jews, who died in millions in gas chambers. Not stop at that, throws in trade-unionists too for good measure. But how about Polish sanitary workers? Or French railroad men? Why did Neimoller not go poetic about their plight under the Nazi jackboot?
Since you urged me to look up Wikipedia, I did, and interesting facts emerge. The chap seems to be more than an idiot, after all. A few samples:
(Niemoller) was a national conservative and initially a supporter of Adolf Hitler..
…(He) made remarks about Jews that some scholars have called antisemitic..
…Like most Protestant pastors, Niemöller openly supported the right-wing opponents of the Weimar Republic. He even welcomed Hitler’s accession to power in 1933, believing it would bring a national revival….
…In one sermon in 1935, he remarked: “What is the reason for Jews’ obvious punishment, which has lasted for thousands of years? Dear brethren, the reason is easily given: the Jews brought the Christ of God to the cross!” …
…Holocaust scholar Robert Michael notes that Niemöller’s statements were a result of traditional antisemitism and that Niemöller agreed with the Nazis’ position on the “Jewish question” at that time.Werner Cohn, an American sociologist, who lived as a Jew in Nazi Germany, also reports on antisemitic statements by Niemöller….
…The historian Raimund Lammersdorf considers Niemöller “an opportunist who had no quarrel with Hitler politically and only began to oppose the Nazis when Hitler threatened to attack the churches.”…
…In 1961, he became president of the World Council of Churches….
…He earned the Lenin Peace Prize in 1966….
And, Wikipedia entry on the “Lenin Peace Prize” says:
“The International Lenin Peace Prize was the Soviet Union’s equivalent to the Nobel Peace Prize, named in honor of Vladimir Lenin…. The prize was mainly awarded to prominent Communists and supporters of the Soviet Union who were not Soviet citizens”
8. July 2010 - 4:41 PM
Before reviling others as fundamentalists you should fix your fundamentals first. I am a hardcore atheist , even more than you are, as some of my relatives claim I have starved my parents to death. I do not think Ram or Krishna was God. But, I revere them as part of my ancestry. What would you call me?
What is Hinduism? According to my perception Hinduism is defined by the exclusivist design and proselityzing objectives of the semetic faiths. In other words, I am a Hindu, because I have so far resisted the conversion attempts of the Muslims and Christians. Semetic religions follow the most corrupted form of spiritualism. Their spiritualism lies in cutting the throats of pagans/ kafirs, or forcing them to come to the ‘right path’. What do you think is the difference between Babri demolition of 1992 and the demolition of Goddess Mannat’s temple by Muhammad? (P BE ON HIM)
You can not blame a bison for killing a tiger.
8. July 2010 - 4:44 PM
@Jal Park
Before reviling others as fundamentalists you should fix your fundamentals first. I am a hardcore atheist , even more than you are, as some of my relatives claim I have starved my parents to death. I do not think Ram or Krishna was God. But, I revere them as part of my ancestry. What would you call me?
What is Hinduism? According to my perception Hinduism is defined by the exclusivist design and proselityzing objectives of the semetic faiths. In other words, I am a Hindu, because I have so far resisted the conversion attempts of the Muslims and Christians. Semetic religions follow the most corrupted form of spiritualism. Their spiritualism lies in cutting the throats of pagans/ kafirs, or forcing them to come to the ‘right path’. What do you think is the difference between Babri demolition of 1992 and the demolition of Goddess Mannat’s temple by Muhammad? (P BE ON HIM)
You can not blame a bison for killing a tiger.
8. July 2010 - 6:22 PM
ad hominem among internet hindus. sums up comments here
8. July 2010 - 6:34 PM
@Anand
@OT
@Malavika
@Archpagan
It’s clear that we’re not getting across to each other. So let’s try a different tack:
What would you do if you were the PM of the country with a comfortable majority under you belt?
8. July 2010 - 6:52 PM
Also, I’m going to ignore all the ad hominem attacks here which just show a lack of true arguments. Instead, I’ll focus on some of the sensible statements…
@Anand You’re supposed to understand the spirit of poem. I apologize if I didn’t make that clear. Let me rephrase. If you keep quiet when innocent people are harmed, a day will come when no one will stand up for you. And make no mistake – in all this “fighting it out” as you call it, innocent people will be harmed.
@OT
See my last two replies to OT
@Malavika
Those believing in religion by definition accept an authority above themselves. Therefore, they’re at the mercy of what that they think that authority tells them to do which could be anything. I didn’t say that all religious people are violent. I said it predisposes people to violence.
@Archpagan
What is your question exactly?
8. July 2010 - 6:53 PM
Sorry OT – my last two replies to Agneya…
8. July 2010 - 9:10 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
The only spirit in any “poem” that pretends that extremists like Communists and Nazis are “victims” is of the alcoholic kind that the “poet” imbibed. You may want to try and quote another poem — Wordsworth or Longfellow maybe — to get your point across, You are also wrong when you say innocents will be harmed. Innocents *are* being harmed. Examples:
1. The people driven out of Kashmir
2. the mothers and the children burned to death in a train car at Godhra,
3. the people massacred on a beach in Marad
4. those gunned down at VT station and in Taj & Oberoi hotels,
5 . the temple-gowers butchered in Akshardham,
6. the shoppers bombed to death in Sarojini Nagar market,
7. the young people blown to bits in Lumbini Park ..
8 .. etc, etc, this really is an endless list
All of these are innocent people, and I am surprised you did not notice that . Of course, they are not innocent according to Islam (and Christianity) , because they are unbelievers/kaffirs, because they commit the unpardonable ‘shirk’ of ‘idolatry’, but what is your excuse, since you resort to artless moralizing at least when logic fails you!? As long as Muslim extremists and Christian extremists focus their energies on kaffirs/unbelievers, innocent blood will continue to be shed. But if the Muslims and Christians get started with their medieval circus all over again, it is not necessarily bad news for humanity in general and Hindus/Buddhists/Jains/Sikhs/Atheists in particular. World War II was nasty, but it got us rid of Nazism, and a more civilized Europe emerged. The bloodthirsty ideology of communism, which killed millions of innocents, is now a pale shadow of its former self. A more civilized world that’s free of fanatical theologies is also possible! And it is then that the harming of innocents will stop. Not if you get involved in the crusade between Christians who think Jesus is cool but Mohammed is up for ridicule, and Muslims who think the answer for that ridicule is chopping off hands and heads and bombing embassies. When you get your priorities wrong, you don’t sound serious at all about protecting innocents. You wanna protect Muslim and Christian extremists. I shake my head in disbelief and sadness.
8. July 2010 - 9:54 PM
@Anand
I am in no way excusing the death of any innocent person. Where did you get that idea from? I re read my comments and wasn’t able to find anything that might have led you to that conclusion.
This keeps happening again and again. Please let me know why you think I excuse violence committed by Islamic fanatics! Because I don’t. The eight examples you have given are valid and I’m not denying they happened!
“All of these are innocent people, and I am surprised you did not notice that”
Notice what? All along right from the beginning I’ve been saying that I don’t want innocent people to be harmed! If you haven’t noticed this, I’m forced to conclude that you haven’t read anything I’ve written till now.
“You wanna protect Muslim and Christian extremists”
Please, please show me where I have said this! I’m really interested in knowing which part of my comments have led you to believe this.
I’m going to try again…I’m simply saying that there are innocent people everywhere in all religions including Islam. Blaming an entire community for the sins of a few people is illogical. And if you attack any community, you will also attack innocent people. Is there something wrong in what I’m saying? Am I being unfair or illogical? Am I showing favoritism to anyone or any group of people here? If so, please enlighten me and show me where I’m wrong. I’m willing to listen.
9. July 2010 - 1:12 AM
@Almost Everyone here
I’d like to really understand the points of view espoused here. Please don’t think I’m making fun of anyone or trying to push an agenda. My only interest is to find the truth and understand how the commentors here feel. Which is why I’m not attacking anyone, nor trying to put anyone down.
Because unless we engage in a dialogue with people we disagree with, there’s no hope of any of us reaching a consensus on anything. I realize there are a lot of misunderstandings (such as many people here thinking that I’m supporting Muslims over Hindus etc..), but we need to expose them so that they don’t get in everyone’s way. I’m sure I have many misunderstandings about your ideologies.
So please don’t take offense at anything I say – I’m trying my best not to give offense and I hope I’ve succeeded at that. I just want to engage in meaningful dialogue which I think after all, is the purpose why we all write blogs and comment on them…
9. July 2010 - 2:18 AM
@Bagawad jal park
Sir, you have an interesting name , curious about etymology of what jal park. That said, what kind of innocence do you mean when you say “I’m simply saying that there are innocent people everywhere in all religions including Islam.” ?. Is it not true that in one particular perspective every human is same why even state the fact which is obvious unless you are consider your audience unintelligent and yourself a level above. All humans are innocent & generous in a way, everyone wants to live comfortably without getting into trouble, provide for their families, develop their careers, enjoy with friends etc. The innocence we are talking here is of different kind, not the day-to-day one. The people who cannot appreciate pluralism, concept of other God or other styles of worship & devotion can never be considered innocent in socio-religious domain. They are always a grave threat to pluralistic groups. Even the Atheists, Rationalists cannot be considered innocent in this perspective because they too are stubborn & dogmatic. They can never appreciate, respect the other view points as the very act of doing so will cause their whole school of thought to collapse. In short, any one who is dogmatic or beleives in dogmatic philosophies cannot be considered innocent in a social context. Quran & Bible behoove their followers to not consider kafirs or infidels as innocents, read them and see for yourself how insidious these cults are.
Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism as its usually called is the only system that encompasses the whole spectrum of various philosophies and schools of thought, from atheism to sometimes dogmatism. If properly followed its a perfect system for nourishing a pluralistic society. The very reason that so many dogmatic religions are surviving on the planet today is not because they are great or grounded but because santana dhrama has lost is fundamental values and have become weak. No human in in his right mind will follow these abrahamistic cults and thats why we see all rich & prosperous nations moving towards non-abrahamistic religions which have their roots in Hindusim. Finally we see clashes of the kind mentioned in this post because, as the saying goes, falsehoods things fight not only with what is truth but also fight with one another.
9. July 2010 - 5:28 AM
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/3173/hinduism
You all kufr don’t know anything about our Islam. It is the only true path and we will be violent if you continue to be ignorant.
(/sarcasm)
9. July 2010 - 7:33 AM
>>>“I wish I were, because I would have spent a portion of them to sue you in courts all over the world.”
Jesus would have used it to buy bread for millions of starving children of India.
As to your dog, it neither can bless, nor bite, is a mere puppet.
An object to beguile the ignorant, while the puppet master- yourself and your popes, devours the victim. The millions of native americans that you devoured are testimony, the millions of Africans you enslaved, the millions of Aboringes you massacred, the millions of european women you burned at stake, the millions of Asians you killed, your greed is insatiable- greed for power, for self-aggrandizement. The mute puppet is a tool in your hands, a ventriloquist’s dummy.
Indians call such insatiable appetite for power and aggrandizement, ‘asura bhavaH‘, a result of past karma- samskara.
dhanyavaad
9. July 2010 - 8:31 AM
The discourse here is all Indiacentric. Indians must read world history well, then only you will be on level playing fields. All three religions of Abraham said monotheism is good, but they had different leaders. The followers said ‘ My leader is great and your leader is not good”. Thats where the trouble started. Then you had the selfish greedy interests of owning land and colonizing. All indigenous tribes were maimed and the starters of monotheism ( Jews) faced the wrath of the other two faiths. The Pagans and indigenous tribes who loved Nature to the hilt, were throughly ploughed thru in words , thoughts and deeds ( The Incas, Mayas of South America). For the Jews , it went on till 1945. The cruetly and mayhem of WWII must be a lesson for all. They were hounded everywhere right from Egypt to Europe for slavery and then for their non acceptance of Son of God concept and the wrong accusation for the crime committed by Pilate, the Roman. It was all vested interests right thru for just power and greed. This greed was in the family of warriors itself. Julian was called the Apostate , by the followers of Emperor Constantine , who gave the militant approach. Julian and Constantine were uncle and nephew. What was the fault of Julian? He admired Paganism and was very secular. My advice is that Indians must read world history . Just being Indiacentric and being fed colonial litcreta ( this is new word I have coined, because whenever I visit Ramana Asharam , Indians always quote some literature from the past, which you can consign to dustbin as it was done for vested interests to divide and rule. I call this literary excreta in short as litcreta).
Please read. You can save some money not see films and buy some bks. It is all available on Amazon. There are some available online. Type in google ” The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara” . You can make start with this book. It is a fascinating true story. Search well, someone from somewhere must have posted it online. Good luck and read well.
9. July 2010 - 11:48 AM
Smith JM said:
“The Pagans and indigenous tribes who loved Nature to the hilt, were throughly ploughed thru in words , thoughts and deeds ( The Incas, Mayas of South America).”
I’ll Add kaffirs to list All these people were/are victims of semitic cults. These cults believe in divinely ordained right to kill, enslave, rape the other. Both Islam/Christianity have theologically sanction for hatred of the ‘other’. This demonization of the other is responsible for the genocides commiited by these cults.
9. July 2010 - 11:53 AM
@Jal Park
You said that followers of all religions follow a central authority. I think here you are missing the point, that I emphasized in my first post above. Since we are comparing religions here so here it is-
In Christianity – The Christ said ‘The path to salvation lies through me’ (only). Then lot of rant on idolatory etc. Pope is most visible religious authority in the world
In Islam – they say only Muhammad is the true Prophet, the true representative of God. All others are Kafirs.
In Hinduism, you are free to worship any God. That’s why there is no insistence, nay, no mention of ‘religious conversions’. For example Gita shows the ‘Path’, does not insist on the ‘Religion’. The Yoga scriptures, like Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra, show you the exact path – that will lead to salvation – no insistence of even being a HIndu. In Hinduism, even atheists are allowed – who do not believe in God.
So your assertion that all religions assume a central authority is not applicable on Hinduism. There are fundamental differences between the Abrahamic religions on the one hand and Hinduism on the other. Hinduism is different. It open hearted and tolerant of other faiths.
The revival of Hindus that you are seeing these days is the result of the concerted and motivated attacks on th Hindu majority which is living like a minority in its own country. They are afraid that if they do not become aware of their rights and privileges, they will be hounded like Jews. Because the opponents are powerful and motivated. Though presently they are in a minority, yet, they are increasing their numbers by the day.
Just closing your eyes and talking in a feel good language will not change the reality.
Even foreigners have begun to see the ground reality of India, just see the following-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/when_elites_eschew_defense_the.html
9. July 2010 - 11:55 AM
Jal Park, you still did not answer my earlier question and I am repeating it here
You said:
“Of course, as an atheist one of my positions is that all religions predispose people to violence under the right conditions. ”
You are wrong,your assertion is NOT backet by any evidence. I invoke Christopher Hitchens rule and dismiss your assertion completely. Ideology motivates people, therefore you do/did not see Buddhist/Hindu suicide bombers or backlash against Muslims in Buddhist countries when Bamiyan Buddhas were demolished.
That is why Hindus have been genocided in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir. Meanwhile Muslim population is increasing in India. You have the nerve to make idiotic assumption that ‘all religions are equally predisposed to violence’.
So, If all religions are equally bad why are minorities like Muslims, Parsis, Jews, and etc thriving in India and decimated in Pak?
9. July 2010 - 2:42 PM
Pat Condell’s latest on the Catholic Church:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBrmH2pCmyM
9. July 2010 - 4:33 PM
>>Ah. So you don’t think it big deal that the “poem” goes out of its way to equate communists with Jews, who died in millions in gas chambers. Not stop at that, throws in trade-unionists too for good measure. But how about Polish sanitary workers? Or French railroad men? Why did Neimoller not go poetic about their plight under the Nazi jackboot?
What about the Homosexuals? What about the Romanis? What about the poles? Oh, he also forgot about the Kashmiri Pandits. Hence the poem is useless and gives us right to sully the author (/sarcasm). He suggested this order because thats the way it happened in pre war germany.
“(Niemoller) was a national conservative and initially a supporter of Adolf Hitler..
…(He) made remarks about Jews that some scholars have called antisemitic..
…Like most Protestant pastors, Niemöller openly supported the right-wing opponents of the Weimar Republic. He even welcomed Hitler’s accession to power in 1933, believing it would bring a national revival….
…In one sermon in 1935, he remarked: “What is the reason for Jews’ obvious punishment, which has lasted for thousands of years? Dear brethren, the reason is easily given: the Jews brought the Christ of God to the cross!” …
…Holocaust scholar Robert Michael notes that Niemöller’s statements were a result of traditional antisemitism and that Niemöller agreed with the Nazis’ position on the “Jewish question” at that time.Werner Cohn, an American sociologist, who lived as a Jew in Nazi Germany, also reports on antisemitic statements by Niemöller….
…The historian Raimund Lammersdorf considers Niemöller “an opportunist who had no quarrel with Hitler politically and only began to oppose the Nazis when Hitler threatened to attack the churches.”…
…In 1961, he became president of the World Council of Churches….
…He earned the Lenin Peace Prize in 1966….”
great example of selective reading. Do you really think people are fools not go back and look at the actual page. Alternatively I suggest a following excepts
“Niemöller himself never denied his own guilt in the time of the Nazi regime. In 1959, he was asked about his former attitude toward the Jews by Alfred Wiener, a Jewish researcher into racism and war crimes committed by the Nazi regime. In a letter to Wiener, Niemöller stated that his eight-year imprisonment by the Nazis became the turning point in his life, after which he viewed things differently.
Under the impact of a meeting with Otto Hahn (who has been called the “father of nuclear chemistry”) in July 1954, Niemöller became an ardent pacifist and campaigner for nuclear disarmament. He was soon a leading figure in the post-war German peace movement and was even brought to court in 1959 because he had spoken about the military in a very unflattering way
His poem is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.
However, as cited by Richard John Neuhaus in the November 2001 issue of First Things, when “asked in 1971 about the correct version of the quote, Niemöller said he was not quite sure when he had said the famous words but, if people insist upon citing them, he preferred a version that listed “the Communists”, “the trade unionists”, “the Jews”, and “me”.
“
9. July 2010 - 4:33 PM
@psecular
Many thanks for your incisive comments. I am 100% in agreement with you. This guy named Bhagwad Jal Park pretends high moral ground by claiming himself hardcore secularist, talking down upon everybody. You have given him a fitting reply.
9. July 2010 - 5:00 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
I am distressed to have caused you angst. I am also in favor of listening to all points of view even including the extreme and I am also for an honest approach, no tricks and for not giving anyone any offense! I would not mind at all if a commenter favored Muslims “over Hindus” and in fact I am looking for such a person to have a straightforward dialogue with! It is just that nobody is coming forward taking the side of Musim/Christian theologies unequivocally! Anyways, I saw you put emphasis on “will” in “innocents will be harmed” and then I’m like.. “will? what does he mean WILL? Can’t he see they _are_?”.
So I hope that explains it.
Now you bring up another point that I have no clue about. You said “this keeps happening again and again”. I hope you are not accusing me? I don’t know much about this “again and again” bit because I am talking to you for the first time and maybe it happened to you again and again elsewhere. But the question of why does it happen again and again is indeed intriguing and I can only offer theories about it. This theory is not specific to you because I know little about your experience; it is more about why certain people come across as justifying the violence done to innocent people.
You see there are two kinds of people in this world. No, no I’m not gonna quote any Clint Eastwood wisecrack here ha ha. The first kind are people with intuitive grasp of reality. Even the illiterate people within this group may have a firm understanding of reality and a conviction about that understanding but of course may not able to articulate it.
Now the second kind — these guys are actually a minority. Very noisome, querulous, mentally twisted, and even powerful, minority. Their stand is: Reality does not matter. What matters is that I want it to be this way. Therefore I am going to describe it that way. I’m going to foist this description on people. I’m going to bully, intimidate, bluff and bluster my way through. When I will have won, reality will be what I wanted it to be.
The second kind actually have success with many people of the first kind (that’s why they keep pressing on with their mission). But then they encounter a few who resist the said foisting. These resistors of the first kind may get to wonder, “why the heck is this dude insisting on his make-believe bs, when the godawful reality is so fucking blindingly obvious?” Or, they may think, “well, wait a minute, this punk here is intellectualizing and obfuscating an open-and-shut case, what’s on his warped mind actually?” And eventually they begin to suspect that the dude is doing it to defend the indefensible, when perhaps the realization also dawns on them that he is on a mission to popularize his “alternative” reality.
Of course, the second kind come in various shapes and sizes. The milder chaps are merely “politically correct”. The cleverer ones argue that reality itself has many shades and shapes, and they even go all reasonable and concede that the darker shades may not be more real than the brighter ones after all, but at least as equal. And finally a few people among this lot, those especially on the extreme side of the Left, can perform mind-numbing contortions, such as proposing anti-reality as the real reality.
This is just a theory that I toy with in my spare time. Please note that standard disclaimers apply .This is only a general theory and I am in no way suggesting that it applies to you. I am looking forward to an honest and open discussion with you and everyone else on all issues.
9. July 2010 - 5:42 PM
BJP (Bhagwad Jal Park) has convenietly termed us all far right. I guess when everything else fails start labelling others. Worked fine under semi fascist media regime, but not any more with the advent of Internet. In all fairness we should term him extreme left wing Pol Pot wadi.
There is no point going to his blog and increasing his web traffic.
9. July 2010 - 5:44 PM
@dark lord
No my dear friend, it is _you_ who’s dishing out a “selective reading” of Neimoller. Nothing in your earlier exhortations to me to refer to authorities to learn about the greatness of this “poet” suggested, for example, that he was also a Jew-hater. You insinuated that he was a great guy, that that was all there’s to him. I’m showing to you his ugly side, his warts and all. Actually I started out with the assumption (favorable!) that he was merely a fool, but your referrals to authorities were not that useless: now I know that he was also a hardcore Christian preacher who held Jews responsible for the killing of Christ, and a closet commie who kissed the butt of a despotic regime like the Soviet Union. The only surprise is that he didn’t pen some verse singing the praise of Stalin.
9. July 2010 - 6:21 PM
@psecular
When I say “Innocent”, I mean those who have never hurt anyone, thought of hurting anyone, or poked their noses into other people’s businesses. There are many “passive” religious people who don’t think deeply about what their religion means and don’t really care. They just happened to be born into their religion. These people are harmless irrespective of whether they’re Hindu, Muslim, or Christian.
So why do they deserve hate? But even if there are people who think deeply and do believe that other religions are wrong, unless they actually involve themselves in violence, I call them also innocent. Because though we can discuss it, we cannot punish people for thinking anything they like.
My name? “Bhagwad” is Hindu, “Jal” is Parsi, “Park” is Christian – And I myself am an atheist!
@GyanP @Malavika
This discussion of our regarding all religions and violence is sidetracking from the main point of this thread – namely whether or not we can simply get angry with all members of a certain religion just because a few people decide to be violent. So if you write a blog post on this new issue, I’ll come there and we can discuss it freely. Done?
Incidentally @Malavika, what in god’s name is “Christopher Hitchens rule?” This is the second time you’ve used it. Please point me to a link which explains it. I think you refer to Popper’s falsification hypothesis.
Also, I used the word “right” because I need a word to describe people with your opinions. According to Wikipedia, here is the definition of “right wing politics:”
“In politics, right-wing, rightist and the Right are generally used to describe support for social stratification with the preservation of traditional social orders and values.”
If this doesn’t apply to you, I apologize. Let me know which term can be used to describe your opinions. I have no problems if you call me “far left” as long as we both understand what you’re talking about.
@Anand
When I said “again and again”, I meant within this very thread. People seem unwilling to believe that I have nothing against Hinduism and feel I’m supporting Islam.
9. July 2010 - 6:30 PM
@psecular
Just so that I understand you clearly, are you saying that any religion that says there is only one god is dangerous? And a religion that says there is no god like Buddhism is also dangerous? And and atheist who also claims there is no god is dangerous?
9. July 2010 - 7:22 PM
All liberals/pseudoseculars/lefties are thinking that criticizing Islam is equivalent to hating Muslims, hence this discussion above. In reality, what is being said is that of all terrorists, it is (infinetly) more likely to find one from this ideology of Islam as compared to others. Merely stating this is public is enough to brand you a communal or racist (in Europe).
We don’t care about the innocent Muslims or followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! It is the anti social elements that are of concern……and they keep on growing. Now obviously, one would want this to stop. The only rational conclusion in my opinion is that Islam is the problem (not Muslims, whom I do not care about). But because people such as Bhagwat J. Park are insistent on bringing in other Muslims into the discussion, no progress will ever be made. Methinks this the manifestation of the state sponsored politically correct lobotomy.
Goodbye Humanity.
9. July 2010 - 7:38 PM
@Radical Humanist
I was replying to the following comment by psecular:
“The people who cannot appreciate pluralism, concept of other God or other styles of worship & devotion can never be considered innocent in socio-religious domain. They are always a grave threat to pluralistic groups. Even the Atheists, Rationalists cannot be considered innocent”
He’s not talking about terrorists here. He’s talking about every person who follows a certain religion. He’s saying that none of these people are innocent.
And that is why I keep bringing up the point about “Innocent Muslims” – so that I can counter arguments like this which imply that everyone following Islam is dangerous.
9. July 2010 - 7:42 PM
I think your very first comment was speaking about the innocent. Anyhow, don’t you think Islam is dangerous to humanity? (Forget about the followers)
9. July 2010 - 8:03 PM
@Radical Humanist
I won’t deny that there are many more radical attributes in Islam than there are in other religions. I participated in the “Everybody Draw Mohammed” campaign when Islamic fundamentals threated violence against the creators of “South Park.” So yes – more than other religions, Islam perhaps offers a greater outlet for violence.
But there are two points here:
1. As we’ve agreed, not everyone who follows Islam is violent. In fact, I would easily say that the number of violent followers is vanishingly small. Of course, there are many Muslims, so event this small percentage can cause havoc.
2. What is the solution here? What can we do? I had replied to Agneya in this thread asking this very question. I tried to show that we can only look at actions, and not what a person thinks.
To take this further, what would you do if you were the Prime Minister and had an easy majority? How would you change things while at the same time, taking care not to harm those who have never engaged in violence and most probably never will?
9. July 2010 - 8:27 PM
Well, first of all the thought police needs to be disbanded across the globe. No one is labeling Muslims as terrorists. On the contrary everyone opposing Islam is being lambasted and demonized by the said police. The disbanding will, of course, never happen, because most mainstream “democratic” parties rely on the Muslim vote bank to remain in power. The Modus Operandi being spoon feeding Muslims about their victimhood. This, combined with the anti-human manual Quran is breeding terrorists. With free speech, more people would know about the abyss of Islam. I am confident free dialogue will bring a solution as opposed to a few people arguing.
What would I want to do? As a humanist I see religion as an impediment to the progress of humanity in general. Therefore, a utopian solution would be to remove religion altogether. Since that will never happen we need to counter the negative manifestations of religion. Which means, stern actions against terrorism and terrorists. Not keeping them cozy in jails on tax payer’s money, or even letting them roam free, as with A. Chaudhary in the UK. Examples need to be made of them; i.e. execute them.
I am afraid I only see one way to deal with this – and that is combating Islam. Madrassas need to be banned, as that is where the vermin breed. Also I would go as far to say that Mosques need to be monitored. There are far too many disturbing undercover investigations which show what the minaret hides.
Anything to change the status quo will be attacked on the basis of “human rights” and religious freedom. Therefore I am inherently gloomy on the prospect of this changing.
We need more people like Geert Wilders.
9. July 2010 - 8:45 PM
@Radical Humanist
I agree with most of what you say. In the first place, free speech and stern action against any violence is what you propose and I agree. Perfect. Though I think that a lot of people (not just Muslims) would be terrified of an environment where anyone can say anything.
I agree with your second paragraph entirely.
The third para is where things get murky. You can’t just ban Madrassas, because then it’s a slippery slope of banning any privately funded organization. You would need to ban churches as well. It wasn’t so long ago that Christians were as violent as Muslims. The Spanish inquisitions, the Crusades etc (In the name of religion no less!) – Christians have done it all notwithstanding the commandments not to kill and ignoring what they say Jesus said. So I have a problem with believing that any single religion is more or less dangerous than another.
If we talk about the “separation of church and state”, then we simply can’t single out any one religion, because in the first place you’ll need to have a unanimous consensus as to which religion is dangerous and why – and even if you’re the prime minister of the entire world, you can’t get that consensus unless you’re a dictator.
I’m afraid that in the most ideal world, Islam is something we have to get used to. It’s here to stay and rhetoric against it do nothing but make people put their backs up. This isn’t easy for me cause I’m an atheist, but I recognize the right of anyone to think whatever they want as long as no one gets hurt.
And for me, that’s the only law we can logically impose. Punish violence and punish only the perpetrators. End of story. Don’t look at a person’s religion because if you do that, you run into the wall of explaining why millions of others of the same religion choose not to engage in the same violence.
9. July 2010 - 9:05 PM
But I don’t want to accept Islam! Yes, Christians were violent, but back when, and for how long? 400 or 500 years at most? I am afraid that Islam has always been the backward desert cult it is for 1400 years now. More horrific, it seems to be the fastest growing religion. Lets just think of probablities….what is the probability a Muslim will become a terrorist? Surely the probability will increase if you have a large population, and the collectivist attitude espoused by Islam. Therefore I think Islam should be singled out as a problem. And surprisingly, this has worked for some – Geert Wilders’ party became the second largest in Holland simply by speaking of the Islamic problem. That would never happen in India, of course. You’d have more angry mullahs on your hand than before.
We do punish the perpetrators (or try), then how come more always spring up?
It seems that humans are not concerned about humanity anymore.
9. July 2010 - 9:23 PM
@Radical Humanist
The very fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion should tell us that our only option is to engage it and not to fight it. In the best of circumstances, fighting a mindset no matter how small the following is difficult. Just imagine the impossibility of tryng to fight a quarter of the world! It can’t be done – and more importantly, it shouldn’t be done.
The mindset of “we need to fight Islam” is merely going to make people cling still more to their faith – as all humans do when they feel persecuted. Let’s be pragmatic here and not make things worse! What option do we have? We live in the real world and can’t cry about a Utopia. Our only option is to go on practicing what we believe in. Violence is wrong and violators will be punished.
Again, if you have a better solution to this, please air it here. Perhaps I haven’t thought of certain options and am willing to listen.
9. July 2010 - 9:27 PM
I want a ban on Islam on the basis of its fundamental propositions being contrary to the benefit of humanity. Too utopian as you said. But what do you propose? How can you engage a cult hellbent on killing you?
9. July 2010 - 9:28 PM
@Radical Humanist
Ultimately, what do we care about? We care about a non violent atmosphere right? We don’t really give a shit about how crazy a person is unless they actually become violent.
Now there is no theory of the mind where we can predict with even 10% accuracy whether or not a person is going to become violent no matter what his or her religion is. So relying on what a person thinks to try and control violence is not only a waste of time, it’s also an invasion of individual freedom.
We. Will. Get. Nowhere. By trying to suppress a system of thought. The only thing we can do in a real world is to punish and create disincentives for violence.
If however, you can come up with a theory that says with even 80% accuracy that such and such a person is going to become violent, then we can talk about the suppression of that ideology. Otherwise no.
9. July 2010 - 9:29 PM
BJP, you ca go around in circles as much as you want I still come back to same question. You still did not answer my question. I am repeating again
Jal Park, you still did not answer my earlier question and I am repeating it here
You said:
“Of course, as an atheist one of my positions is that all religions predispose people to violence under the right conditions. ”
You are wrong,your assertion is NOT backet by any evidence. I invoke Christopher Hitchens rule and dismiss your assertion completely. Ideology motivates people, therefore you do/did not see Buddhist/Hindu suicide bombers or backlash against Muslims in Buddhist countries when Bamiyan Buddhas were demolished.
That is why Hindus have been genocided in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir. Meanwhile Muslim population is increasing in India. You have the nerve to make idiotic assumption that ‘all religions are equally predisposed to violence’.
So, If all religions are equally bad why are minorities like Muslims, Parsis, Jews, and etc thriving in India and decimated in Pak?
9. July 2010 - 9:34 PM
@ Malavika
Did you read my reply to you?
9. July 2010 - 9:37 PM
@Malavika
It’s clear to me you’re not reading anything I write. If you were, you would see that I took the time to respond to what you said. In the future, before you attack me, I humbly request you go through what I say and respond accordingly.
9. July 2010 - 9:43 PM
As a fellow atheist, I disagree that all religions equally predispose followers to violence. The desert cult is quite unique in it’s constant call to warfare in that respect. Well, I hope Islam remains in it’s backwater hellholes devoid any development. Oh wait, I forgot that every kaffir territory is an area of war. I think we must engage Islam i.e terrorism, not “Muslims”. We are not engaging it, on the contrary we are flattering it with tags such as “the religion of peace”. Now excuse me as I go and puke.
9. July 2010 - 9:49 PM
@Radical Humanist
I’m all for debating religion and examining it’s tenets. I’ve never called Islam “The Religion of Peace.”
There are people who use the word “Muslims” as a whole – just read comments in this threat for examples – ignoring many who don’t really practice Islam to it’s ultimate end. In fact, which one of us fully practices his or her religion? I don’t see Christians becoming poor and giving away all their wealth!
So even if Islam predisposes it’s followers to a greater amount of violence compared to other religions, that doesn’t mean that Muslims are going to do what is written. In fact, most do not.
If I’ve managed to hammer home the point in this discussion that we mustn’t club all Muslims together and that many Muslims are non violent and deserve to be treated like human beings like everyone else, then all this talk has been worthwhile.
9. July 2010 - 10:02 PM
I think the talk relating to Muslims was aimed towards other comments, as I subscribe to that view myself – even though my comments may be hostile. But I am hostile towards an ideology. The followers are a very different thing altogether. The existence of Islamic discourse is the problem I have. Yes, you do not flatter Islam, but the people supposed to be working for us aka politicians do. Every attempt is made to deflect the blame away from the desert cult. Other commenters *might* have problems with Muslims, but my battle is with Islam.
And must the followers always take offense at anything said about Islam? If another person thinks something about Islam, why are they getting tense over it? I read horseshi*t about Atheism (Atheism is a religion etc.) but I don’t feel “indignation” due to it. The problem with all religion is that people care too much about what others think!
9. July 2010 - 10:07 PM
@Radical Humanist
Agreed. But it’s not just Islamic followers who get hot under the collar. Look at the reaction to M F Husain painting naked Hindu godesses. Same reaction as when Mohammed was drawn in derogatory ways. This is an issue with religion in general and not with any specific faith.
9. July 2010 - 10:16 PM
Well MFH is a hypocrite of the first order. Anyhow, I still attach more weight to Islamic reactions, because, well you see it every day, and their hypocrisy is truly appalling. Free speech if it suits their purposes? Stay classy, fundamentalists.
True you will find negatives with religions, because, well it is religion. But the density of negatives is so heavily biased in favor of Islam, I feel that we can afford to be non-discriminating.
10. July 2010 - 12:59 AM
=>
“Just so that I understand you clearly, are you saying that any religion that says there is only one god is dangerous? And a religion that says there is no god like Buddhism is also dangerous? And and atheist who also claims there is no god is dangerous?”
=>
I’d say that any ideology that says “my way is the only right way and rest all ways are wrong” is dangerous. More so if the ideology also calls for converting/killing those who do not believe in their ideology. And that includes Communism, the two Abrahamic faiths as well as atheism. I would not have included atheism in this group, but based on the statements of many self-professed atheists, I’m forced to, because these atheists become anti-Hindu, instead of minding their own business. Or they illogically and irrationally start equating all religions, even when there are major differences staring them in the face.
10. July 2010 - 1:15 AM
=>
“Agreed. But it’s not just Islamic followers who get hot under the collar. Look at the reaction to M F Husain painting naked Hindu godesses. Same reaction as when Mohammed was drawn in derogatory ways.”
=>
BJP, looks like you seriously need to read your history (as I suggested to you on your blog post), otherwise you will continue to have huge lacunae in your understanding of the affairs of Indian (or for that matter, global) society. If you ignore all the previous/chain of events and situations in India (esp. anti-Hindu attitude of certain secular parties, appeasement of Muslims, etc.) that led to MFH issue and other similar events, just because those events happened before you were born or before you learned to read, you will continue displaying your ignorance. Because, events of today have their roots in the events of the past, and it is important to study those past events to get a handle on what’s happening today. I’m not sure why someone like you, who is ostensibly smart and rational, would ignore such a logical and rational – as well as pretty basic common sense – factor?
Additionally, there are two logical holes in your argument when you unsuccessfully try to equate the outrage over a. MFH paintings and b. Mohammad cartoons.
1. The Danish cartoon issue resulted in GLOBAL violence.
2. There were numerous (and not insignificant) Hindus who spoke out in favor of MFH and criticized the Hindutvas, and it was not one-sided.
And if you display an attitude like “Islam is here to stay – that’s the reality”, then what’s to stop someone from saying “Hindutva is here to stay – get used to it.”??
==============
As for your answer to a question you asked earlier, I’ll try.
1. You see the world as an atheist, whereas others see the world as Hindus.
2. From what I’ve seen and read, there are significant and irreconcilable differences in these two world-views, which lead to you asking questions on a blog like this.
3. So, unless you learn to look at issues through a Hindu lens, you will keep asking such questions and you will keep wondering why others have a different perspective.
There, can’t make it any simpler than that.
10. July 2010 - 2:22 AM
@Kaffir
But dogmatists can be found in all religions. Here’s a comment from psecular earlier in this thread:
Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism as its usually called is the only system that encompasses the whole spectrum of various philosophies and schools of thought, from atheism to sometimes dogmatism. If properly followed its a perfect system for nourishing a pluralistic society.
Being dogmatic isn’t the domain just a few religions. Any religion can become dogmatic if people take it too seriously.
“And if you display an attitude like “Islam is here to stay – that’s the reality”, then what’s to stop someone from saying “Hindutva is here to stay – get used to it.”??
Of course it’s here to stay! I’m not attacking Hindutva. I’m only attacking those who engage in violence irrespective of what their religion is.
And about studying history: We need to study history so that we don’t repeat past mistakes. For example, looking at the history of WWII, we will be very careful and look out for the same behavioral patterns that began to develop in the Nazi regime and make a course correction before it’s too late.
But the purpose of history is not so that we can bring up years and years of discontent when looking at a recent problem. If we did that, there will be no progress. Look at the Kashmir issue. When discussing, it both sides bring up (but in 1971, but in 1994, but in….). Why not just start from scratch? The past is gone. Learn lessons from the past, but don’t hang on to it.
(And before this goes further, please let’s not start discussing Kashmir here!)
In a way, it’s a very good thing that people die and new people come who aren’t emotionally burdened by past incidents.
Regarding M F Husain, you haven’t told me about the past and why it’s relevant. The end result is that he was thrown out for some stupid drawings. That is what we must look at at the end of the day.
10. July 2010 - 2:24 AM
Hello Comrade Jal Park,
You have very interesting, if contradictory, views. You are here to defend, valiantly and passionately , Islam from what you see as the unfair blame/criticism it receives. A Muslim defending Islam is of course is not an unexpected sight, but you sticking your _atheist_ neck out for a _religion_ that is viewd unfavorably by many people is, I must admit, rather fascinating, I’d have thoroughly appreciated and enjoyed your novel brand of defend-Islam atheism , but for one uncomfortable fact: whereas atheists generally buttress their views with scientific facts, you seem to rely on a technique that’s fanatical and dogmatic in an almost religious sort of way: repeated assertion. Islam says that there’s no God but Allah and Mohammad is his last prophet, QED. You say that Islam is no more or no less dangerous than any other ideology, QED. But even as you state this strong belief once in every three sentences, do you also, unknown to you, nurture some self-doubt? Take a deep look at this assertion:
>>I’m afraid that in the most ideal world, Islam is something we have to get used to.
Why do we have to “get used to” a religion that is no more or no less dangerous than other religions? After all, we don’t say, “I’m afraid that Buddhism is something we have to get used to”, do we?
Which brings me to my next point. How do we exactly get used to Islam? Do you propose to indoctrinate people? Something like: “Repeat after me! Islam is no more or no less dangerous than Hinduism!” and then (hopefully) people would sing after you in chorus :”Islam is no more or no less dangerous than Hinduism!” and then the scene culminates with you smiling triumphantly and declaring: “See? I told you! Islam is no more or no less dangerous than Hinduism!”????
Do you also think that we’re better off taking the commie approach to the whole issue? Put that chorus line in NCERT textbooks, maybe? Or replace, perhaps, the Indian Pledge with “Islam is no more or no less dangerous than Hinduism! All Muslims are my brothers and sisters! I’m fine with madrassas, burqas, triple talaaq and a whole bunch of other Islamic goodies! In addition also to being called a kaffir! Etc, etc!!” so that school assemblies can kick off the day with it?
Do you seriously believe that will work? They tried that sort of thing in the Soviet Union, you know. Given what happened to USSR, I suspect that indoctrination won’t work in the long run, though it may have its momentary little victories. The reasons are two, I think. First is that is insecure people who resort to techniques like indoctrination, coercion, and, if I may say so, repeated assertion
. They are insecure because they know their line isn’t something that will be accepted on merit. Two: No one, especially insecure chaps, can fool all of the people all of the time. Mopping up the water off the floor may disguise the leaky faucet only for a brief while. Put in another way — can’t resist mixing my bad metaphors — the elephant in the bathroom is going to make its presence felt, sooner than later.
If you insist on this dubious approach to the Islam problem, I urge you to reconsider it on aspects related to operational efficiency also. According to a Pew opinion survey, 64% of non-Muslim Indians think Muslims are intolerant, 73% think Muslims are fanatical, 67% think they are violent. So on the average, more than two-thirds of non-Muslim Indians have a problem with Muslims/Islam. That means that you have got to turn around roughly 58% of Indian population with your indoctrination project to achieve your goal, assuming that Indian Muslims comprise 15% of the total population. What is a more sensible approach: indoctrinating 58% of the population, or the 15% percent?
10. July 2010 - 2:33 AM
Hello Jal Park,
>>The Spanish inquisitions, the Crusades etc (In the name of religion no less!) – Christians have done it all
Why didn’t the world get used to them?
10. July 2010 - 3:02 AM
@Ot
“Why didn’t the world get used to them?”
You’re talking about specific practices. I was referring to the religion. When I say “we have to get used to Islam”, I’m not saying we have to get used to violence. I think I’ve made it amply clear that I don’t tolerate that. We have to get used to the fact that Islam exists and we can’t wish it away.
To answer everything else you say, why don’t you tell me what you would do if you were in charge? Could you do a better job other than getting used to it?
10. July 2010 - 3:22 AM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
@OT
Interesting arguments both of you.
@Bhagwad Jal Park
What irony is it that soon after I spoke about the two kinds of people in this world — those with loaded guns and those who dig — you decided to dig! Ha ha ha.
But hey, I think I can see where you are coming from, though I go with OT on the point of the contradictions in your argument he mentioned. Monotonous assertions lack credibility.
Suppose you said:
“Yes, unfortunately Islam is the most intolerant and dangerous religion in the world. But it commands fierce loyalty from its adherents, and that is part of the danger. The adherents also number in billions. For this reason, fighting Islam’s intolerance imposes a heavy cost on all of us. The best course of action is to get used to Islam, try and cope with it, and hope that someday it will sanitize itself”
Suppose you made that kind of argument. Don’t you think then your stand will have a better chance of being seen as credible because there’s less contradiction in it? No, I am not suggesting that people will readily agree to your recommendation, but perhaps there’s the start of a dialogue there. Only if you want it of course.
I make this suggestion because you expressed anguish about that “again and again” thing. I met a communist long ago who justified the killing of school children by Muslim terrorists. He also claimed that all religions are as equally bad as Islam.
10. July 2010 - 3:35 AM
Mr.jal park, I dont know why u are failing to understand a simple definition. People who cannot appreciate alternate views on religion, God etc, like followers of cults like islam, christianity, atheism, rationalism etc cannot be considered innocent or benign from a social, politcal & religious perspective. These are people not with just very strong opinions, they resort to dangerous actions too.They can quickly transform into a critical mass thats dangerous for humanity. These organized religions, isms & cults are good at bringing that dangerous critical mass within a span of few days and hence should be quarantined and slowly eradicated. Europeans realized the dangers of organized religion log ago and hence the concept of secularism was created. All of you guys fall under same category and are a grave threat to existence of easy going, non organized religions and groups. You deserve no mercy as you are not innocent in this particular perspective. I hope you got it into your head.
Coming to Hindutava, its the first attempt in modern India to bring traits of organized religion into santana dharma and the reason for such metamorphosis is because of pseudo secularism followed by neo muslim league called Congress party after Indian independence. Nevertheless its a dangerous toy to play with and many Hindus are averse to it becoz of that very fact. Sikhism was one such attempt to create organized religion based on true sanatana dharma mixed with shrewd socio-religious amendments to counter the excesses of an organized desert cult called Islam.It worked really well and brought great peace to all people of various religions on both sides of Indus. I hope Hindutva will metamorphose & align itself based on true values of sanatan dharma aka Hinduism instead of becoming just an another organized political doctrine. Defending Indian diversity and pluralism against political doctrines that have a long history of mixing god with politics, is most important task. No prosperous nation in its right mind will really allow organized religions to thrive. In the name of true secularism, like the few pragmatic European countries, its time to castrate these cults (including atheists & rationalists groups which blindly take sides with these cults either out of fear or to stay in limelight) in India. Only then will India become prosperous in all domains.
Moral :A guy who is intolerant of another person’s God, opinion or view, can never be considered innocent. Its even more dangerous if he is from an organized cult. Never underestimate the power of large group of stupid, intolerant people.
10. July 2010 - 5:22 AM
>>>“1. You see the world as an atheist, whereas others see the world as Hindus.
2. From what I’ve seen and read, there are significant and irreconcilable differences in these two world-views, which lead to you asking questions on a blog like this.
3. So, unless you learn to look at issues through a Hindu lens, you will keep asking such questions and you will keep wondering why others have a different perspective.”
@ Kaffir,
You are discounting commenters like Radical Humanist and Ot who apparently incline more towards ‘atheism’ that ‘hinduism’, yet there are no “significant and irreconcilable differences” between their comments and that of commenters like Anand, psecular or yourself.
‘Atheism’, ‘hinduism’, ‘kaffir’, ‘muslim’… are all labels. Claiming a label or assigning a label does not mean anything.
B’ad JP merely claims a label ‘atheist’, is actually more influenced by the ‘secular’ ‘liberal’ gibberish that the ‘intellectless’ fashionably mouth. In short, B’P is a wannabe.
Real atheists like Pat Condell or Dawkins, or commenters mentioned above, do not parrot the lines of ‘secular intellectless’. They have, rather, more original ideas.
To say “unless you learn to look at issues through a Hindu lens…” is really meaningless. For ‘hindu’ itself is a chimeric label, created by westerners. ‘Hindu lens’ is equally so.
Going beyond labels is necessary. “Wolves in sheep’s clothing” is a well known phrase. Labels are mostly clothing.
Looking without any lens is advisable in most cases, except when defective vision is diagnosed.
Children are usually born with healthy vision. Unfortunately many parents make them wear lenses from childhood, that in many cases impairs their vision as they grow up. Sunday schools, madrassas, are places where such blinding lenses are fitted. ‘Secular’ newspapers/TV channels also fit such lenses on their unwary readers/viewers. B’ad JP apparently got one fitted by them.
In most cases, when such lenses are abandoned, people regain their healthy eyesight gradually.
dhanyavaad
10. July 2010 - 6:54 AM
@psecular
You sound exactly like one of the dangerous people you’re talking about with sentences like:
“…etc cannot be considered innocent or benign”, and
“…and hence should be quarantined and slowly eradicated.”, and
“…You deserve no mercy as you are not innocent”
Do you even realize how dangerous you sound? I don’t think any commentors in this thread will endorse your feelings. You’ve gone over the top.
@Incognito
“is actually more influenced by the ‘secular’ ‘liberal’ gibberish that the ‘intellectless’ fashionably mouth. In short, B’P is a wannabe.”
For someone who claims that labels are bad, you seem very keen to make liberal uses of them.
“Sunday schools, madrassas, are places where such blinding lenses are fitted. ‘Secular’ newspapers/TV channels also fit such lenses on their unwary readers/viewers. B’ad JP apparently got one fitted by them.”
Aren’t you just a little bit presumptuous here to assume that only you’ve seen the truth?
@Anand
I made almost exactly the same point in an earlier comment. The words were a lil different, that’s all!
10. July 2010 - 6:57 AM
@psecular
@Incognito
I’ll ask this question for the third time:
What would you do if you were the prime minister with can easy majority? Give me a practical solution that would correct the ills of society as you see them with regard to Muslims, Atheists etc.
10. July 2010 - 7:13 AM
BJ Park, you are a jerk. Period. Or you must have landed from Mars this week. How could you be soooooooo blind to the obvious , namely Islamist Terrorisim? Religion does matter as tenets of Islam demands it’s followers to kill Kaffirs. You have failed to come out with names of Hindu terrorists and when cornered, you are trying hide under this ” terrorist have no religion” blanket.
Anybody with little bit of brain knows that both Islam and Christianity are the curse of mankind.
99% of terrorisim (or more?) activities are carried out by this outfit called ISLAM. Basically, Muslims need to be saved from Islam.
You are really pissing a lot of people off by your holier than thou attitude and pig headedness. Stop being a wanker.
10. July 2010 - 3:38 PM
@baghwad jal park,
exactly Mr.jal park, I have borrowed everything from communist, Islamist, Nazi charters to show you how dangerous and over the top things can go when stupid people with really strong opinions take control of various aspects of the society. I am happy that you could see the point. There was no other way to make you understand the threat except use the threatening tone used daily by your esteemed friends in islam, xian, communist, fascist & atheist circles. The gist was to convey that nobody in right mind should allow members of above radical clubs to thrive. In democracy these things should be nipped in the bud else, they will eat that very democracy which allowed them to grow.
hope you got the point. FYI Atheism has become just an another form of fundamentalism followed by a group of equally dangerous people who are pissed o with organized religion. Hinduism & other un organized religons have nothing to do with all this bull shit. Modern day atheists and followers of semitic cults should keep away from pulling it into that blood feud.
10. July 2010 - 4:54 PM
@psecular
You can’t call a person fundamentalist unless they actually start beating up people, whether it’s atheists, muslims, or hindus. What they think doesn’t matter. Otherwise you’ll start seeing everything as a threat before it happens which needs to be “nipped in the bud.”
10. July 2010 - 5:24 PM
Atheism as danger and a cult? What am I reading?
10. July 2010 - 8:24 PM
@psecular
Attack individuals. Not groups. You said:
“…use the threatening tone used daily by your esteemed friends in islam, xian, communist, fascist & atheist circles.”
I’m an Atheist. Have you heard me use threatening language? No. So don’t use a group as a catch all phrase.
Talk about people. Not groups. Otherwise you’re being dishonest.
10. July 2010 - 9:32 PM
BJP said:
“I’m an Atheist. Have you heard me use threatening language? No. So don’t use a group as a catch all phrase.”
You are a class A jerk who defends the most intolerant and fascist ideas.
In fact true atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi and will be apalled at your skullduggery. Try posting your crap on Sam Harris web site and see the response from other Atheists/Agnostics.
As for me I am liberal Hindu.
10. July 2010 - 10:00 PM
couple of points to add to the comments.
1. All religions are not the same
2. ‘tolerance’ is vastly different from mutual respect
Excerpts from good ol’ rajiv malhotra’s writings on this topic –
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/what-is-hindu-identity/
… Hinduism Offers Mutual Respect, Not Merely Tolerance
There indeed are certain kinds of identities in this world which are divisive. This is because they claim exclusivity. If an identity claims exclusivity, it argues that: “For me to be valid, you cannot be valid. For me to be right, for my sacred book to be valid, anything that’s different must be invalidated. It has to be dealt with, maybe by violence, maybe by non-violence, but it has to be dealt with and it cannot be considered valid.”
Such an identity of course creates conflict. And such an identity can at best offer tolerance of others who are different. But ‘tolerance’ is a very patronizing term. It means that “I don’t really think you are legitimate but I will put up with you.” This is what tolerance is. Luckily, Hinduism does not have this problem because Hindus do not claim exclusivity. Instead, they offer mutual respect rather than just tolerance…. “
10. July 2010 - 10:53 PM
@ Bhagwad Jal Park: ” …There are no “Islamic Terrorists” and “Hindu Terrorists” – there are only terrorists .. ”
Firstly, i appreciate the points u have been trying to make. i really do; Now, a cursory glance at the reporting done by the vast “mainstream” english language media of india and their stats with regard to their coverage of religon-related violatence shows that it is most certainly not fair-and-balanced coverage, with an equally lopsided followup, (or non-followup). They do not adopt your ‘fair’ position since they know precisely which side of their naan is buttered. So will you speak out against this horrific practice by the ELM at every forum possible, including your blogs, since this principle appears to be so dear to you?
10. July 2010 - 11:56 PM
Mr. BJP firstly hats off fr stayin so long n replyin relentlessy albeit gibberish at times… man yuo keep yapping about how your an atheist over n over again… whats the big efffing deal man…. all i can say is this
, held in your arms a bunch of goo which moments ago was your friend or relative??? please refrain from talking about such things so casually…..
1) all religions(ideologies) arent equal as in there are a few that foster hatred and a few..well one actually… that say give people space to have their perspective on things… no prizes for guessing which is what…..
2) its the ideology thats wrong n needs corrections n people following them must make an effort to rectify it.. oh no wait if they do that may be they will lose a limb or two… well if you have insurance cover i guess its a green signal
3) u said “In a way, it’s a very good thing that people die and new people come who aren’t emotionally burdened by past incidents.” have you ever,god forbid… oops forgot u were an atheist
11. July 2010 - 2:25 PM
In any third-world country, there will always be lots of problems to solve, attitudes and behaviors to condemn. But because attention and moral outrage are scarce commodities, a prioritized list will always be required.
With that in mind, its obvious that in India the Muslim demographic rise is a timebomb waiting to explode in a carnage mirroring 1947-48. This is priority number 1.
There is massive, massive poverty due to Nehruvian socialism and its abhorrent contemporary carrier – the Indian National Congress. This is priority number 2.
Due to numbers 1, and 2, and applying Nitin Pai’s excellent theory of Competitive Intolerance, the Hindus are copying the methods of Muslim and Christian censors and bullies, increasingly. But of course the media and the pseudo-secular class will only notice this late, pathetic copying, and not the originators of intolerance and violence.
So the choice is clear, to be free and prosperous, the Jihad and Naxalism must be defeated, socialism must be defeated, and then when Hindus feel secure in their own homeland, they will undoubtedly stop copying Monotheist intolerance. If they don’t, well its not a hard problem taking care of idiotic parasites like Raj Thackeray.
11. July 2010 - 2:26 PM
>>>‘For someone who claims that labels are bad, you seem very keen to make liberal uses of them.”
Didn’t notice quotation marks ?
>>>“Aren’t you just a little bit presumptuous here to assume that only you’ve seen the truth?”
Isn’t that presuming ?
11. July 2010 - 5:59 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
I note with interest that you are very strongly attached to this “what will you do if you are President of the United States” question. The last time I deliberated on this weighty matter was in grade 9 or so, during a school essay writing competition. It is a closed chapter, I am not going to strain my grey matter on the subject again. You better ask me what would I do being just me, and my answer to that question is that I remain opposed to intolerant and exclusivist ideologies, regardless of whether they call themselves “Islam” or “Communism”. Your insistence that people should “get used to” Islam puzzles me. There is not much I can do about the pervasive corruption all around also. But anybody who suggests that I should get used to it is, in my eyes, complicit in colluding with the corrupt, if not corrupt himself.
How about you get used to criticism of Islam instead? The said criticism is in fact growing in strength day by day. In Europe, from where we borrowed ideologies like secularism, veils are being banned. You see, rebelling against intolerance and bigotry is intrinsic to human nature. You are not going to be very successful asking people to get used to them. Instead, _you_ should get used to the opposition to them. What can you do anyway, other than getting used to it? If this is your blog, you can delete comments you dislike as soon as they are posted (though such tricks are best left to loser commie nutjobs brainwashed by their loser commie dads.
) but what can you do about thousands of web pages out there you have no control over? Can you really indoctrinate people, as OT has been saying, into not speaking their mind? In fact, not getting used to free expression can hurt yourself, because it may leave you with this itch to delete comments you dislike, but then you are helpless! Think it over.
11. July 2010 - 8:48 PM
@Anand
Unfortunately, for anything real to come out of this discussion, we need to agree on what should be done. That’s why I asked you what you would do if you were in power. Because you have such strong opinions on this, I want to know what you would do if you were given a free hand.
Otherwise, you’re essentially telling me that what the government has been doing is correct and there’s no better way. If there is a better way, tell me what you would do.
11. July 2010 - 10:42 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
If you believe that only political/executive action at the level of the prime minister matters and then nothing else does, then you are wasting your time trying to muster support for your get-used-to-Islam idea on this blog. But you are here, and you’re spending good amount of time on it too. Obviously, you are eager to influence the thinking of the readers of this blog. I’m intrigued why. Can you not sleep well at night until the said readers stop talking about the intolerance of Islam? Why not? What difference does it make to you?
11. July 2010 - 11:15 PM
@Anand
It worries me because if people come to power who think that Islam is the root of all evil, they have the capacity to cause untold suffering in the same way that Hitler thought Jews were the cause of all problems.
Basically, people in power should not prefer one group of people over another and demonize one group at the cost of another.
12. July 2010 - 12:29 AM
Hello Comrade Jal Park,
>>It worries me because if people come to power who think that Islam is the root of all evil
I get it. So your interest in this blog post is not the Islam Problem, but your morbid fear that the readers of this blog may in the future massacre Muslims on a large scale.
It is interesting that you bring up Nazism though. Today the ideology that’s most vocally carrying on the antisemitic agenda of Hitler is political Islam. When Muslim terrorists attacked Chabad House in Mumbai, they sexually tortured the inmates before killing them. To travel all the way from Pakistan to perpetrate such cruelty on a minuscule Jewish minority in Mumbai (I mean, why not just put bullets in them, man? Or at least gas them, like the Nazis did?), even desiring a certain death (or “martyrdom”) for oneself in the process, requires a dehumanizing ideology. Nazism was one. Little Muslim children are taught that Jews are “pigs”. In Muslim countries, it is fairly common for Jews to be referred to as “Jewish pigs”. You have been making a good song and dance about referring to people as “groups”. That is precisely what Islam does. Islam owes nothing to unbelievers, certainly not even compassion. (Ok, I take that back. If you pay protection money, you can live as a dhimmi). Untold suffering is resulting as a consequence, as we speak, and you are oblivious to it all. You speak in mysterious tongues, surely. Innocents _will_ be harmed. Untold suffering _will_ result. Hmmm.
I don’t think it is a good idea to get used to the killing of innocent people. I don’t think it is a good idea to get used even to the notion that it is inevitable that innocents will be targeted. People have a right to expect a world free of untold suffering. Which is why your defence of Islamic intolerance, and the recommendation that we must “get used to it”, worries me. Of course, you are full of it, the milk of human kindness, I mean. But so was Chamberlain. Do you think he was a bad guy?
I’m only explaining that my commenting here is not motivated by any grander plan than countering your dangerous idea. But that 9th-grader question, as Anand put it, is not as crappy as he thinks. I’ll maybe think about it sometime.
12. July 2010 - 12:37 AM
@OT
“So your interest in this blog post is not the Islam Problem, but your morbid fear that the readers of this blog may in the future massacre Muslims on a large scale.”
Not specifically readers of this blog, but yes. I’m afraid that people with the mentality of looking at a certain group and blaming them for all problems are prone to such acts.
“Which is why your defence of Islamic intolerance, and the recommendation that we must “get used to it”, worries me.”
I don’t really care for Islam. I care for individual people who are just born into a religion without thinking about it.
12. July 2010 - 12:59 AM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
If you can believe that the opinion that Islam is the root of the problem will lead to carnage, you shoould have no difficulty accepting that the belief that kaffirs are the root of evil will lead to mass murder too. It’s not just due to ‘crazy people’ you know. Try untwisting your knickers a bit,
12. July 2010 - 1:53 AM
@Anand
Please point me to a blog where everyone is saying that Hindus are a danger to society and peace to substantiate your claim.
12. July 2010 - 5:00 AM
From the way things are looking now across non-muslim countries. carnage appears to be a close prospect. And it will be wrought due to the fact that we did nothing about it – we got “used to Islam”. And as I stressed before the only way to engage it is by politically incorrect measures.
12. July 2010 - 7:28 AM
@Radical Humanist
The US has never had any great love for Islamic elements. Yet I would think the spectacular cock ups in Iraq and Afghanistan would teach us that just invading another country and engaging in violence doesn’t work.
Now there are some people who are advocating invading Iran. Ridiculous…
12. July 2010 - 7:45 AM
=>
“The US has never had any great love for Islamic elements. ”
=>
What do you mean by Islamic elements? What time-period are you talking about? Just the one that you are aware of, i.e. last 5-7 years or so? Another lacuna in your knowledge of US history? And what would you interpret as “great love”?
Would doing business with Islamic countries qualify as “great love”?
Would giving money in aid to Islamic countries qualify as “great love”?
Would giving citizenship to Muslim refugees from Islamic countries qualify as “great love”?
And since when have states and countries based their affairs on “great love”? And should they? Questions for you to ponder and then write some posts on your blog.
12. July 2010 - 9:22 AM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
I asked you to sort out your confusion and make up your mind whether dangerous ideas lead to the persecution of innocents or not , and your respond with: “point me to a blog where everyone is saying that Hindus are a danger to society .. etc”. This is a free world. Let me read your rights to you. If you are not able to answer a question — and that includes the following question — you can remain silent.
How about this:
“When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. ”
This is not on a mere blog. The passage occurs in a holy book revered by billions of people. Millions of copies of it are in existence. It is learned and studied in millions of schools around the world. Do you think the passage reflects a noble sentiment? If not, do you think those who target “idolaters” are in no way influenced by it?
12. July 2010 - 9:59 AM
I honestly have no idea what you think about atheism, but it isn’t exclusive to ‘western’, ‘cultureless’ people. It has always been there, except as a minority. Have you heard about Charvaka?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka#Beliefs
This philosophy, which is both Hindu, and atheistic, existed before Christ, in 6 BC. And this just one of the many minor branches.
12. July 2010 - 3:11 PM
Bhagwad Jal Park said:
“It worries me because if people come to power who think that Islam is the root of all evil, they have the capacity to cause untold suffering in the same way that Hitler thought Jews were the cause of all problems”
Your Freudian slip is showing, you are not worried that in over 50 nations leaders thinks it is ok to kill, rape, enslave kaffirs and infidels. In these nations women are stoned to death for being victimized, and minorities are ethnically cleansed and discriminated. And you are not worried about apalling cruelty being inflicted on the hapless minorities , but worried about ‘what might happen’?
You atheism mask drops and we can see your Tayuiyya/Kitman.
12. July 2010 - 5:37 PM
@Anand
I’m more concerned about what individual people say rather than what some book says. You say that millions and billions revere it but no one follows their religion 100%. So personal opinions on blogs are more important since they come straight from the people themselves.
@Malavika
I never said it’s ok. But I’m currently more interested in India because I live here. I’ve also written about outrages committed in other countries and so have other bloggers. It’s not this vs that.
12. July 2010 - 6:02 PM
Harsha,
Yes. I know about the Charvaka siddhanta. But what is your point exactly?
12. July 2010 - 6:34 PM
BJP said:
“But I’m currently more interested in India because I live here. I’ve also written about outrages committed in other countries and so have other bloggers. It’s not this vs that.”
So you think Kashmir is not in India? spoken like a true Momin. And your Islamic ideology has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing of Hindus in KAshmir, Pak and Bangladesh?
I live in India and my interest is not to end up like Hindus in Kashmir/Pak/Bangla. These momins are from the same genetic material as Hindus except the ideology. The results are clearly there to see.
You still did not answer my Q. Here it is again
So, If all religions are equally bad why are minorities like Muslims, Parsis, Jews, and etc thriving in India and decimated in KAshmir and Pak?
12. July 2010 - 7:26 PM
@Malavika
What’s a Momin?
“And your Islamic ideology has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing of Hindus in KAshmir, Pak and Bangladesh? “
What does this mean? Are you suggesting I support all that?
“I live in India and my interest is not to end up like Hindus in Kashmir/Pak/Bagla.”
I don’t think you have anything to worry. We’re now a mature democracy. Are you really worried that Muslims are going to go on a rampage and kill you in India?
“So, If all religions are equally bad why are minorities like Muslims, Parsis, Jews, and etc thriving in India and decimated in KAshmir and Pak?”
I’ve not denied that Islam has more violent elements than most religions (though not more than Christianity I might add.) Why not point to the US and ask why there’s no Islamic or Jewish violence? The situation depends on economic levels, education, maturity, etc. Religion is a small part of it.
And like I told you before – let’s get into the debate of “all religions are bad” elsewhere. This thread has already too many comments. But I get the feeling that unless I answer you you’re going to keep pestering me about this. So here’s my answer. Religion is bad because god is an illogical concept.
12. July 2010 - 8:20 PM
BJP again”
“Religion is bad because god is an illogical concept.”
No. Your theory is flat wrong and still you did not furnish any facts to butress your assertion.
Organized religion is BAD. There is no moral equivalence between
Varthamana Mahavira or Indic traditions and Prophetic sytems. Your dishonesty shows when you equate these two.
You are a closed minded bigot. You make sure no amount of facts change your opinion.
12. July 2010 - 8:28 PM
@Malavika
“No. Your theory is flat wrong”
Like I said – this isn’t the forum to debate this issue. Let me know if you still want to continue this…
12. July 2010 - 9:25 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park,
>>You say that millions and billions revere it but no one follows their religion 100%.
But that is the scary part! Only a small percentage of the believers follow the fun edicts of the faith, such as putting women in the veil and idolaters to the sword, and yet they have such phenomenal success. A major chunk of their population lives according to the dictates of this small percentage, mired in a medieval mindset. It wants to rebel and free itself, perhaps, but the grip of the small minority is strong. Even those from among this population who voluntarily made liberal environments their home are not free from the clutches of this minority: there are conflicts with host populations, terrorism, the killing of innocents, demands for Sharia and the whole works. This small minority is the main instigator in most every significant conflict in the world today, and its victims run into thousands annually.
But this minority’s crowning glory is that it managed to cultivate defenders who proclaim to the most rabid of Islamists out there that they will not waver from the path of asking unbelievers to get to used to the Islamists!! Only a few followers of the book accomplished this feat! Now imagine what more of them cannot accomplish? If their numbers double, for example, I’d know it from some chap arguing that we must get used to them by conceding their latest demand (such as paying jajiya tax, perhaps). At this rate, the amount of worry and concern demonstrated by people like you (about the imminent massacre of Muslims by bloggers) seems to be a good indicator of how close to the precipice we are. For Allah’s sake — and make that Mao’s sake as well — please, get more worried!
All in all, this line that the people you want us to get used to are only a few in number is of no consolation to me. It is getting _me_ very worried and concerned instead.
12. July 2010 - 9:33 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park,
>> Yet I would think the spectacular cock ups in Iraq and Afghanistan would teach us that just invading another country and engaging in violence doesn’t work. Now there are some people who are advocating invading Iran. Ridiculous…
This is a manifestation of the revived crusades that I was talking about. Two of the world’s extremist ideologies, Christendom and Islam, are facing off each other again. (No, I don’t think any decent human being worth his salt should get used to either of them). If Iran also joins the conflict, it will definitely escalate.
But this is none of our business, and we should adopt a strictly hands-off approach. If there are any lunatics in our country who want to join the frontlines, we shall be glad to ship them off, but the government of India must remain strictly neutral. That is what I said too when some people said that we should send troops to Iraq. We shall not side with either of the warring parties.
There potentially is an upside to Iran also getting drawn into the crusades business. Because of AfPak we have been enjoying relative calm along the LoC. More of the quagmire to the west of us means greater peace for us.
12. July 2010 - 10:00 PM
@Anand
For once I agree with everything you say!
I agree that a minority is a controlling power. The online and onstreet protests in Iran show that large numbers of people are resisting this minority. So yes – we have to be afraid. And this is true for all religious violence. I agree completely.
But now what do we do about it? Leaving aside Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc let’s turn to our own country. Clearly you and I by ourselves can’t do much other than just being wary and aware of the danger of religious fantaics. If this discussion is to lead to anything without being a complete waste of time, there must be some action that we agree on.
Which is why I keep coming back to the main point. What would one do if one had the power?
12. July 2010 - 10:06 PM
@Anand
Incidentally Anand, you shouldn’t just be worried about the extremist religions here. Look at psecular’s comment for example. He’s openly advocating quarantining and eradication of anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his particular brand of ideology.
He recommends the cleansing of Christians, Atheist, Muslims etc – all of them in one sweep and says that none of them are innocent. That “Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism as its usually called is the only system that etc etc…”
Are you comfortable with someone using language like this? Isn’t this sort of talk as dangerous as that which some other religions use? So let’s just focus on all fanatics instead. Surely you can’t object that no?
12. July 2010 - 10:09 PM
@BJP
“The US has never had any great love for Islamic elements. Yet I would think the spectacular cock ups in Iraq and Afghanistan would teach us that just invading another country and engaging in violence doesn’t work.
Now there are some people who are advocating invading Iran. Ridiculous…”
The hellholes should be left to enjoy the divine Prophet’s teachings. However, where the pedophile followers are not strong (i.e. not in population majority) , every attempt should be made to stop them from reaching that position. Of course you could say that they are no threat etc. However history does not lie. You can look what happen to Constantinople or Istanbul as it is know today. Islam is at its core a collectivist tribal culture, with expansion as a natural proclivity. True enough all followers are not violent….but once the numbers increase, the violent elements magnify. Look at Saudi Arabia where no other religion is allowed or Pakistan where non-muslims were about 10% at the time of the partition. If you want to see effects today, visit a muslim ghetto in a non-muslim country. I understand cities such as Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam and London have this problem already. How about preaching your gospel of tolerance to them?
In India, look at Kashmir. And why will the Muslims breed like rats? For one, it is their duty to that to conquer the kaffirs. Also, polygamy. And of course, muslims are always the most undeveloped community from an economic perspective. And there is a strong correlation between the level of development and fertility rates. What is this if not a ticking timebomb?
Now, look you here, sir. We don’t want to tolerate intolerance. And what better example of intolerance than Islam, hm?
12. July 2010 - 10:16 PM
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/07/van_gogh_killer_has_no_regrets.php
How about some outrage for this chap, eh?
12. July 2010 - 10:22 PM
@Radical Humanist
From what I know, Constantinople fell from outside and not from radical elements within it. What is needed is an example of a community where Islam is in a minority and has risen up and destroyed that society from within.
But I think you correctly hit on the point of development. To use your words, if history has shown us anything, it’s that development and economics exert a benign influence. This isn’t surprising. Once a person is comfortably off, they don’t want to disturb that position.
So the best option is to just focus on development and in time (perhaps 50-60 years) we will all be much better off. Incidentally, 50-60 years isn’t a long time in terms of nation building.
12. July 2010 - 10:30 PM
@Radical Humanist
I should also mention that religions like Christianity and Islam thrive under persecution. By saying stuff like you want to eradicate it, you’re only putting their backs up. I promise you that such an approach will only make things worse. If you want to look at history, the roman empire tried damn hard to eradicate christianity and we all know what happened.
It’s far more productive to let people know that there’s no threat to them.
12. July 2010 - 10:51 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
I looked at that comment of psecular, and am puzzled as to what you are so worked up about. Islam, Christianity and Communism do want to eradicate anyone who don’t subscribe to their ideology, what is so surprising about it? I told you my experience with a commie who justified the killing of school children by Islamists. There are commie extremists who publicly expressed the view that Nandigram is no blot on their ideology. What is surprising about one more ideology, pissed off by the violence of Islam, Christianity and Communism, joining the bandwagon, if that’s what psecular is doing at all? You reap as you sow!
Frankly, your line frightens me much more than psecular’s. I am more worried by the implied suggestion in your 9th-grader question that ordinary people should not express any opposition to intolerance and bigotry; that they must instead get used them. I can a imagine sleazy politician like Jyoti Basu gloating and trying to spread cynicism: “see? what can you do about corruption? You can’t stop us even if you are PM, he he he!”. But when it is done by a seemingly educated person like you who also is advocating getting used to it, then, sorry, your protestations about psecular seem like a mugger complaining to the police that his victim rebelled and beat him back!
But the heartening thing about this debate is the very little support the get-used-to-intolerance idea is getting. If you don’t believe me, you should try this experiment. Do you have a commie blogger friend, like a Briganza or a Dsouza? Ask the fellow to host a poll for you on his blog. The question should read: “Do you agree that we must get used to intolerance, terrorist attacks and Islam in general?” Report the results back — just make sure the commie dude won’t manipulate or delete them.
12. July 2010 - 10:52 PM
Assuming of course, the muslims are receptive development. But even then how would we know if that can succeed? Saudi Arabia is relatively more developed amongst the developing world, yet it still clings to the pedophile, and more than any other country!
I brought up Constantinople to show the expansionist nature of Islam. Other examples would be…..North Africa, the Balkans, Iran, Iraq etc. ad infinitum.
What I am trying to say is that Islam and Modern Civilization are absolutely exclusive of each other. You can’t expect to sit in the sidelines and say “yeah dude, it will be fine if we let it be”. Choose one:
1. Islam
2. Peace
I think, you are not seeing Islam for the threat it is because you don’t believe that it is a demographic timebomb. Others have tried to convince you, but it seems to be of no avail…
Some possible scenarios of Islam vs. Humanity (regarding England, but India has more Muslims so they should apply)
This is how things would work out according to you:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/crystal-ball-for-britain-part-1.html
And here is how others would see it:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/crystal-ball-for-britain-part-2.html
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/crystal-ball-for-britain-part-3.html
12. July 2010 - 10:57 PM
@Anand
You’re ok with psecular saying that I should be quarantined and killed (since I’m an Atheist) ? You really think that’s ok?
“is the very little support the get-used-to-intolerance idea is getting.”
That’s because of the nature of this blog. If I were to do the same poll on my own blog, the results would be very different.
“The question should read: “Do you agree that we must get used to intolerance, terrorist attacks and Islam in general?”
No. The question should read: Should we get used to the fact that a lot of people follow Islam?
Intolerance, terrorism etc are acts which are committed by humans. What their religion is should not be a question.
12. July 2010 - 10:59 PM
@JAL PARK
>>Are you comfortable with someone using language like this? Isn’t this sort of talk as dangerous as that which some other religions use?
Oops sorry, missed it the first time round. I am actually more uncomfortable with your language that suggests that we must get used to the killing of innocents than I am with psecular’s.The simple reason is that he hesitates to use his real name unlike you who is posting with true identity. Take two politicians. One is openly asking for bribe (and urging people to get used to corruption) and the second one is secretly collecting bribe, but is publicly pretending to be in favor of clean practices. Who is more dangerous for our country? The second person can be held to values; the fear of exposure holds him back. The first guy is out of control!
12. July 2010 - 11:03 PM
@Anand
You’re not worried by the fact that psecular wants to kill me?
12. July 2010 - 11:07 PM
@Anand
“more uncomfortable with your language that suggests that we must get used to the killing of innocents”
I can’t believe I’m reading this. After all this time and so many comments you feel that I’m ok with the killing of innocents? Have you actually read nothing I’ve written till now?
12. July 2010 - 11:08 PM
Hello Comrade Jal Park,
Interesting dialogue between you and Anand But ..
>>The question should read: Should we get used to the fact that a lot of people follow Islam?
Can you remove your left foot off your moth please. Folks here acknowledged that Islam has billions of followers, whereas you have been insisting that only a few follow it … This is getting bizarre, man.
Regarding the poll Anand mentioned, did you get a chance to look up the Pew Attitudes Survey I referred to earlier? 64% of non-Muslim Indians think Muslims are intolerant, 73% think Muslims are fanatical, 67% think they are violent…. Not lending your theory a whole lot of support, as you can see. I much sympathize with you, but guess who needs to get used to what?
12. July 2010 - 11:11 PM
@OT
Argumentum ad Populum
Incidentally, please give me a link to this poll. I want to see this for myself.
12. July 2010 - 11:13 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
Kindly calm down. I don’t think psecular is out to kill you. In the heat of the debate people say stuff. It’s all relative. I merely said I find your line _more_ dangerous than psecular’s. But not to overstate the point, I don’t think either of you is so consumed by your dangerous convictions that you’ll knowingly and personally harm an innocent person; though I do not rule out the possibility that one of you, like that Paki GeoTV dude, doing some wink wink nudge nudge
12. July 2010 - 11:17 PM
@Anand
“I don’t think psecular is out to kill you.”
I didn’t say that. The implication is that he’s ok with me being killed. Not that he will do it himself. His logic is simple:
1. Atheists should be killed
2. I am an atheist
3. I should be killed
Which of these three statements do you disagree with?
12. July 2010 - 11:20 PM
@Anand
I’d like some consistency here. At least admit that someone was being a jerk and fanatical.
Suppose I looked at his words and assumed that everyone here is like that? How would you like it? Not fair is it? So I’m not doing that. I expect the same attitude to be consistently applied.
12. July 2010 - 11:31 PM
@Bhagwad Jal Park
No doubt the interpretations you are suggesting are possible. But I am more concerned about:
1. We should get used to Islam
2. Why does the question of “getting used to it” arise at all?
3. Because Islam is not only triple talaaq, and the veil and the raped daughter-in-law separated from her husband. If only it were only that much! It’s also akshardham, godhra, 7/11, 26/11, Delhi, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Pune, Bombay, Marad, cartoon killings, riots over Taslima, and much more
Any human being with decency and pride will refuse to get used to bullying and intimidation. That you should even suggest it boggles mind, and makes your interpretation of psecular’s statement look school girl’s idle chatter in comparison. That’s all I am saying, not condoning either of you. No need to get exercised about it.
12. July 2010 - 11:39 PM
@Anand
“In the heat of the debate people say stuff.”
If the same comment had been made by an Islamic element, it would have been quoted a hundred times and plastered all over the Internet. Why do you think it’s ok for one person to say it and not another.
Be consistent and condemn both.
@To Everyone
Condemn intolerance and bigotry wherever you find them. Because you will find them everywhere. In India, US, Israel, across all religions and ethnic races. There’s nothing inherently superior about one religion or race compared to another.
It’s often been said that Indians are the most racist of all people. I’m not sure about most racist, but we’re definitely racist. Whenever one feels morally superior to another group of people, I can guarantee that there’s some deception going on.
I really think this discussion has gone on long enough. I’ve commented here for the past five days trying to get a point across, and after all that time, I still hear comments like:
“You suggest that we must get used to the killing of innocents””
If no one reads what I’m saying, then this is a waste of time. I only hope there are some others here who read through this entire dialogue and see the sincere effort I’m making to impress upon people that violence isn’t the answer, because it’s never worked in the past and that innocent people will get harmed and there’s no way to avoid it.
See you guys.
12. July 2010 - 11:40 PM
The vast majority of people believe Islam to be peaceful and to pose no threat….surely that is a logical fallacy too? Btw I had another comment but that is awaiting moderation.
12. July 2010 - 11:50 PM
Why are you so insistent about removing the cause of intolerance from any discussion?
13. July 2010 - 12:35 AM
=>
“Once a person is comfortably off, they don’t want to disturb that position.”
=>
Wrong. Here is a list of guys who are/were well-off.
1. Osama Bin Laden
2. Ayman Al-Zawahiri
3. Faisal Shahzad
to name a few.
13. July 2010 - 3:26 AM
Some more news on the hand chopping incident
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jul/12/is-the-church-in-kerala-boycotting-muslim-shops.htm –
Kerala: Is Church boycotting Muslim shops in Muvattupuzha?
http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jul/07/islamic-court-ordered-chopping-of-profs-palm.htm
Kerala: Islamic court ordered chopping of professor’s hand
13. July 2010 - 6:13 AM
In response to the religious intolerance of Islamic countries, BJP has been quite successful in deflecting the focus away from the main point. He starts giving an example of USA. Did you notice how he avoided acknowledging the religious intolerance of Islamic countries, which is firmly enshrined in their laws?
On his other blog I mentioned how Bareilley riots were not reported by the media and were completely blacked out. His reply was “From what I’ve seen, there’s no evidence that those riots were politically motivated – and though people were injured, no one seems to have been killed. You can’t really compare that with the Gujarat riots can you? For me to get involved, I must see that the riots were politically motivated.”
Then he says that he condemns violence. And he cannot see the bias of media. Ha!
Guy, I have become a fan of this fellow. His twisted logic, ability to ignore uncomfortable questions, deflecting the argument in a tangent is admirable.
He has nothing but negative feelings for India/Hindus and has got all the defense that he can muster for Islamic fundamentalism. For doing this he is always coming out with very novel arguments.
Not once in the entire dialogue he has condemned the Islamic fundamentalism, nor lamented the fact how much country has suffered and is still suffering from these acts of violence, and how to deal with this. ‘We should deal with acts and not thinking behind such acts’ – is his standard reply.
His negative bias is clear from his parting shot -’Hindus are said to be the most racist’. Pray BJP, you can say anything that comes into your mind. Someone above has already pointed out how the communities of various shades and hue are prospering in India. We respect all faiths, that is a part of our society, our culture, and we are proud of it. We do not need your or anyone else’s certificate of character. Many European scholars have said the same thing about the tolerance and respect for the other beliefs that is shown by Hindus – if you care to look around. That’s how the multi cultural society has come into existence here.
But it doesn’t mean that Hindus’ tolerance will be used against them, and taken advantage of.
Our country’s peace has been shattered by the fundamentalist forces, and you have the courage and conscience to subtly support such acts – by saying that we should look at acts and not the thinking behind these acts.
Then you say that Kashmir doesn’t interest you (here or on your Blog). Why, May I ask? It is very much politically supported by some political parties. By your own argument, you should come out against it. I think here the water becomes murky for you, so you stay away from you.
BJP, the country is burning, and people like you are trying to win some brownie points. Shame on you!
if things go on like this, and if people like you are around, then the future of the country is very dark indeed!
13. July 2010 - 6:37 AM
Atheists, Agnostics and believers.
I do not know how much of you know about European history which is linked to all western societies. After WWII , which had 70 million killed , which includes the holocaust of 6 million Jews, Atheists like Bertrand Russell ( his famous bk ” Why I am not a Christian, there may be many for other religions , but Russell was the first and the rest are all copy cats) some more took the view , that religion has no place in society. Russell was atheist and a pacifist. There were the believers still who said , we are still large in number and did not agree with the atheists. Agnostics like GB Shaw and Fabian formed the middle path, with many govts introduced social security , health care which took the dependance of citizens away from the religious preachers, who were responsible for centuries of misery right from burning the brilliant Bruno at stake to innumerable acts of despotism and cruelty. This worked wonders ( with present outsourcing and globalized economy, social security etc , is undergoing drastic changes. One hopes for a Fabian and Shaw like figure to bring the right changes). Will it be difficult to introduce this type of measures in India? It can be done. I do not know how garangutan the implementation would be. Probably just as I wrote earlier , decentralised implementation may do it well. These economic application should be like polytheism, very decentralised , with the finance just allocated to the decentralised autonomous centre by the state or federal centre. Federal centre could be like monotheism , which could be biased like religion.
So in diverse country like India , states which are many (means poly) , should allocate finance from state taxes to more number of polyeco centres at the viilage level for health care and some form of social security.
The postings here sound more like blowing one’s own vuvuzela, which is like saying I am from this and I want to impose that. It is India which gave the philosophy of conquering the “I”.
The ego is the root cause of all problems. Pack up all your vuvuzelas and do not be bookish, for the books of do this and dont do this, may energise only the ego. Read and be analytical in your views.
As the vuvuzelas have all rested now, this is the time for introspection of the ego.
13. July 2010 - 9:03 AM
Bhagwad Jal Park
12. July 2010 – 8:28 PM
@Malavika
Malavika: “No. Your theory is flat wrong”
BJP: Like I said – this isn’t the forum to debate this issue. Let me know if you still want to continue this…
Why? You care about just India but bring in USA. Why? You are incinsistent illogical and bigoted.
13. July 2010 - 9:23 AM
Malavika: I live in India and my interest is not to end up like Hindus in Kashmir/Pak/Bagla.”
BJP: I don’t think you have anything to worry. We’re now a mature democracy. Are you really worried that Muslims are going to go on a rampage and kill you in India?
Malavika: Yes, Ask Kashmiri Hindus, Keralite Hindus. It is happening NOW. You are shameless enough to suggest that Kashmiri Hindus are having a great time. Are you suggesting that Hindus shouls not worry now and get genocided later? That happened to Hindus in PAK.
Malavika “So, If all religions are equally bad why are minorities like Muslims, Parsis, Jews, and etc thriving in India and decimated in KAshmir and Pak?”
BJP: I’ve not denied that Islam has more violent elements than most religions (though not more than Christianity I might add.) Why not point to the US and ask why there’s no Islamic or Jewish violence? The situation depends on economic levels, education, maturity, etc. Religion is a small part of it.
MAlavika: Major Hasan was not an American Muslim? Finland, Japan have no Jihadi terror, but there aren’t any Muslims there either.
Since you brought in US, why not bring in Saudis. There a Muslim arabs life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. Talk abot all Islamic nations and show us one nation which treats its minorities like India, US and yes Israel.
Malavika: You still did not answer Why? Economics is not the reason, if it was sub Saharan Africa, Guatemale should have the most terrororists. But, that is the not reality.
Again your assertions are flat out wrong and not based on any evidence. Why should anyone here pay attention to your gibberish?
13. July 2010 - 9:45 AM
Smith JM said:
“The postings here sound more like blowing one’s own vuvuzela, which is like saying I am from this and I want to impose that. It is India which gave the philosophy of conquering the “I”.
I agree broadly with your theory that pluralistic traditions like Indic traditions allow freedom and let diversity to thrive. You are wrong to conclude that, my attitude is “I am from this and I want to impose that”. No, I have no intention of imposing my philosophy on any one, at the same time I have no intention of letting organized religions(Islam and Christianity) impose their will on me.
I,e, my philosophy is tolerating intolerance is not a virtue and it is Adharma.
13. July 2010 - 10:23 AM
Hello Comrade Jal Park.
>>It’s often been said that Indians are the most racist of all people. I’m not sure about most racist, but we’re definitely racist.
This looks like some sort of Russell’s Paradox: “the problem with us Indians is that we stereotype people”. You should have been this sincere right upfront, when you were laboring lamentations against what you claimed was the tarring of whole groups of people. Long ago when I lived in the US I used to come across guys like you — the desi who would characterize other desis negatively to demonstrate that he is not like “those people”. In hindsight, I think they can be excused; they were only trying to impress whites and get ahead in the rat race. You to the contrary seem to be genuinely mistaking your prejudice for noble intent, and naturally feeling smug about it.
But it is mighty surprising that you think this discussion is about proving the superiority of one religion over the other. Unless this is a spin to justify your five-day campaign here, one must conclude that it points to the possibility that your prejudice is a defence mechanism against a latent sense of self-loathing and inferiority.
Of course moral relativism is a load of crock, the tool of “progressives” who want to take us backward. There ARE bad ideologies and superior ideologies. There ARE good religions and lousy ones. Fossilized dark-ages ideas that originated in a quest for power cannot equal thoughts that germinated in contemplation and inward focus, and continued to evolve. And atheism of course is far superior to a blind belief in a sky-god.
But that is not the point of this debate, comrade. We shall have the other debate when you return. This one is about pointing out the fact that intolerant, exclusivist ideologies will inevitably lead to strife and misery. If you really love peace, resist the masquerading of intolerance as faith. I will leave you with a thought from Will Durant:
“The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.”
13. July 2010 - 11:46 AM
@Bhagwad Jal Park:
you opined ” Why not point to the US and ask why there’s no Islamic or Jewish violence?”
i wholly agree (reasons in parentheses): 9/11 terrorists (too many casualties, hence it does not count), the times-square moron-bomber (plan wasn’t fool proof), the shoe-bomber (bomb did not boot up), jihad jane (just another wild west legend), and the psycho army guy (therapist’s bullets soothe, they don’t hurt)
At this point i was mostly convinced, but what was hastily postulated next sealed the deal: “Religion is bad because god is an illogical concept”. Tweetable, self-evident and take-it-to-the-bank solid. Furthermore, i combined this statement with your very first comment “terrorists have no religion” to conclude that what you really wanted to say all along is one or more of these things.
a. all terrorists are atheists
b. terrorists are good because they are so logical
c. unlike atheism, religion is bad despite not producing terrorists
13. July 2010 - 2:01 PM
@Jal Park
@ Smith
Religion is not the bane, organized religion has been and still is the bane. Jal Park is not getting this point and talking everything except that. I have shown him exactly how organized cults like Mafia operated with a charter & guidelines and he refuses to believe. Someone who is reading this dialougue might be able to see my attempt to get the point through his head.
Modern Atheism which started out as a fight against organized religion has itself imbibed the traits of organized religion and I was conveying that such groups are no different from the religious fanatics. You may ask that if every thing that is organized has to be banned then who will be left. People who keep/do not keep belief in religion, God to themselves and not proclaim out to any 2nd person are the ones who are safe for a real democracy. Rest of them all only weaken it. Mustafa kemal in Turkey and revolutions in France, Italy are few case studies in which all types of organized religious/non-religious groups capable of rallying frenzied crowds got disbanded and true secularism was achieved. dont know why Mr.Jal park finds it hard to understand this point and keeps supporting violent ideologies.He is also overlooking here the scientific and extensively used field of statistics and clubbing everyone with everything.
13. July 2010 - 3:09 PM
About BJP Phenomena
(It is interesting short form I think GyanP has invented)
This article is interesting. It assess possibilities about what might happen. A clash is quite possible. Though I still have faith in majority community and culture of India which is essentially Hindu. We can find a way. Just below in one comment tells about a recent development that Christian community in Kerala may boycott doing any business or communication with supporters of terrorism from Muslim community (perhaps to start with they may have to boycott every one from that community (how does one identify who are not supports of their terror acts?). I do not know how far they will go. But idea may result in an interesting start. Is it a start of the clash argued in this article? I am not sure. Let us hope more such ways are found.
It is high time we have to organize majority in our country – we do not have to just leave extremist elements specially supporters of terrorism and violence from Muslim communities as time being almost all of visible violence/terrorism one sees all over world is caused by extreme elements from that community, but we have to boycott some of actions of even people like BJP who claim to be atheist and or calim that they are supporter of “all religions are equal” principle etc. But all their actions suggest otherwise. Doesn’t he essentially supports current spell of terrorism coming from Muslim communities by using phoney arguments which surely he also knows are phoney –” that all terrorists are same” or “all communities have terrorists” etc.
Actually one should not say terrorism coming from Muslim community, perhaps terrorism coming with Muslim color is more appropriate word. Current spell of terrorism all over world is being essentially directed and supported by army top and fuedal lords in Pakistan and some other similar countries. They are using it as a tool to continue their brutal rule in their country and become powerful in other countries. They are giving Muslim color to it also to use it as a tool. A large number Muslim because of cultural reasons, being uneducated or reasons described in this article either do not see this phenomena or and are not ready to see this phenomena. I wrote several articles about this phenomena.
But they are not the only ones in our country. Is it not true that we have a large number of people in our own country in our power circle, media and press, bloggers like BJP who are also behaving in essentially the same way as supporters of terrorism in Muslim community and are not ready to see the reality. Their blindness- is it much different from such Muslims blinded by above mentioned phenomena. Our powerful so called secular breed is foolishly allowing these elements from countries like Pakistan this space quite easily and because of that not just us but people allover world are now suffering. These people (specially BJP -type) have not just blindness described above, they have many of their own compulsions also. May be — getting a certificate of secularism and then using it to rise in the so called secular parties, media etc. and make money out of it or filling their ego with thinking that their foolish attitude makes them most intelligent or liberal etc. are two other visible reasons.
Just to give an example this is what BJP said in the other blog after GyanP and me tried to tell him that he has to be careful in making utterences in blog.
“You rightly said that I can make mistakes in a personal blog and I accept them when it’s pointed out. And of course, blogs are different from newspapers in that they’re essentially personal opinions. Unlike a newspaper, I have to be less careful about being impartial.”
When people imply that they do not have to honest/impartial, they can say or do any thing. Do they not deserve a boycott? By discussing with them or writing comments to them we provide some authenticity to them. Do they deserve this? It may also be harmful, in the sense that minimum it does is to boost their ego and they start feeling that they may become big leaders and may lead big movements etc. This phenomena is quite visible in their style. Just look at all such blogger or anchors or editors in our news channels or press.
What do you say GyanP? Is it not time to leave them and not allow their egos to be boosted in this manner?
13. July 2010 - 5:14 PM
psecular said:
“dont know why Mr.Jal park finds it hard to understand this point and keeps supporting violent ideologies.He is also overlooking here the scientific and extensively used field of statistics and clubbing everyone with everything.”
There none more blind than those who refuse to see, and none more deaf than those who refuse to hear.
A Sanskrit proverb.
Our resident fraud(BJP) is an excellent example of the above proverb. He is neither an atheist nor a liberal. He is dogmatix and no amount of evidence or facts can sway him.
13. July 2010 - 6:45 PM
posting here after ages….I like your snipes at the urban middle class, they are sarcastic and caustic and have a sting in them, think it serves them right to be so indifferent to the issues you raise.
@ Jal Park: dude, you sound some sort of a peacemaker..or the one who’s taking intensive coaching on pseucdo secularism!
13. July 2010 - 9:10 PM
Leftwinger interventions on blogs always take a predictable pattern:
A swashbuckling entry with a flame-bait
A middle that goes round and round in circles sans logic
A closing sermon re-starting a dogmatic position that can’t be justified with reason
Why is that?
13. July 2010 - 9:58 PM
@Soumya, and everybody,
I completely agree with Soumya that we should completely boycott the blogs of such people, and not even comment on them. By doing so we provide them with a little bit of legitimacy which they are really after.
Initially, I was also hesitant in leaving comments on his blog – I was sensing some dishonesty in his utterances and forthrightly said so in my comment there.
After a few interactions with him, I realized that, either, he is immature, or he is aware of everything, understands everything, but is just posing – making blog entries on ‘reaching out to the far right’; leaving comment here about all religions are bad when you talk about Hinduism; and teaching tolerance when you say something about Islam.
In my opinion, the latter one is the correct assessment. He wants some kind of certificate in the circle that he moves in. After few such episodes, he can proudly flaunt himself as one of them, and gain some sort of respect there, and maybe some kind of job. That’s why he is flaunting, like medals, all the little bits of jibes that have been made at him, as if they are some sort of medals – ‘look me too!’
So, I completely endorse this view of Soumya that we should refrain from even commenting, let alone mentioning the blogs of such people.
My other proposal is as follows-
Why not devote a blog post, or an entire blog, in analyzing the dirty tricks of these BJP Club Members (we may call it BCM!) and come up with suitable reasoning that exposes the logical fallacies, bigotry and falsehood hidden in the arguments of such dudes — a sort of Think Tank!
13. July 2010 - 10:59 PM
It took a long time to read through.
There used to be a more innocent times when a blogger used to post something and people used to comment to discuss or inform or stay informed. A new species is slowly taking over the blogosphere. This troll sort-of species do not come to the blogs to discuss or exchange points, they come to the blogs to show his points to others and declare that he was better than everybody else at the end. I took a look at his blog and understood that he was bored with his commenter community agreeing with him and wanted a good fight. After the 5 day fight is over, he has gone back to his lovely home and would not bother to reply anything here. So no point to vent on. Peace!!
Sandeep,
Can we have a piece on this Lokayukta fiasco in KN?
13. July 2010 - 11:10 PM
“So, I completely endorse this view of Soumya that we should refrain from even commenting, let alone mentioning the blogs of such people.”
No one should visit his blog. No good purpose is served by increasing his web traffic.
14. July 2010 - 1:49 AM
I was hooked on to this site for the last 2 hours. Malavika, you seem to be the only woman warrior here
, good going girl. As for Jal Park, he seems very immature. I am not particularly religious, more humanist, but I would be blind not to see Islam and its negative effects around the world. He likes a lot of attention and the only way he gets it is by making irrational statements and trying to prove his point by hook or crook. It is so easy to wade into a chat room and just declare openly extreme views and thoughts. It must feel snug to get so many people worked up.
14. July 2010 - 5:35 AM
i understand this is a serious forum that deals with real issues, but i sorta miss Mr. BJP Quixote’s instant epic battles with logical windmills. what do we do for ‘comic relief’ now ?
14. July 2010 - 9:27 AM
I just have one question to those here who claim that Islam needs to be done away with. I am assuming that all of you have been brought up in India. Which means that at some point of time in your life, you would have come into close contact with a Muslim – a classmate, a neighbour, a friend.. a co-worker.. whatever.
Have none of these Muslims been decent people? Did none of them strike you as being just a regular person – carrying on with their lives without any ill intentions towards others?
14. July 2010 - 2:28 PM
I do not think – barring a few things above by a few said in the heat of the argument – anybody here is against Muslim community as such. Terror perpetrated in the name of Islam – that is the topic of concern.
As a community, I think it is time for Muslim community also, to open the gates of discussion. I have seen recently through some news items that this is indeed happening – albeit on a very small scale. Still, it is a good beginning.
14. July 2010 - 6:12 PM
=>
“Have none of these Muslims been decent people? Did none of them strike you as being just a regular person – carrying on with their lives without any ill intentions towards others?”
=>
It’s not about people, it is about an ideology. Just like it says here.
14. July 2010 - 11:10 PM
I quite agree with comments of GyanP, Sid, Malvika Rani and Kaffir. Sid I liked your sentence “This troll sort-of species do not come to the blogs to discuss or exchange points, they come to the blogs to show his points to others and declare that he was better than everybody else at the end.”
Circfan! Do not worry, BJP is not the only troll. You will not miss him much. Unfortunately time being feudal management in our country still lost in license raj of socialist/leftist erain many spheres (for example in media and press and in Histroy academia etc. ) produces by tonnes such trolls. All are looking for a big attention — a phenomena Rani describes so well.
Example is a new guy popped in here — “JUstAN Indian”. He says
“I just have one question to those here who claim that Islam needs to be done away with.”
Now if you go through comments or article did any one claim here any such thing (actually perhaps he can not distinguish between Islam and Muslims – he means Muslims). Even if you assume either -
did any one say any thing even close to such a sentence?
Still why is he/she compelled to write such a sentence. Circfan, if you feel so lonely without BJP, why not enjoy his/her presence for some time. Let us hope not every one of such guys born out of this miserable mess being created in our country, is so much inclined to be not even ready to be honest and declares it. Some of them might learn.
Kaffir – I looked at the interesting article http://www.deeshaa.org/2010/02/07/the-distinction-between-people-and-ideologies/ you sent — .
Do you see the names he mentions of such trolls sriram, sahir, alpana, — do their comments not look essentially the same as what BJP throws away almost instantly.
We are indeed producing in tonnes such trolls.
Still I am hopeful and very optimistic about our country. Main reason is silent majority is very different. I think time being almost all Indians just laugh at this kind of miserable behavior and are not much moved by all the garbage we see in our tv media press or political space.
Though issue is still serious one — I have wondered many times with all our might , technical business skills and what not, can we not at least have some people to get into this space specially of media and press say one or two channels to break monopoly of feudal managers and to bring in some reasonableness.?
Just now in our media and press people who look to be most irrational are adored as rational and people who look to be quite rational are condemned with all kind abuses (any thing one can think of) not just irrational. Breaking a feudal monopoly in ruling class of our political parties, media and press is needed strongly.
15. July 2010 - 1:22 AM
@Soumyasrajan empathized ” … Circfan, if you feel so lonely without BJP, why not enjoy his/her presence for some time ”
well ‘lonely’ is too loaded a word, but i certainly enjoyed Mr.BJP’s misadventures while it lasted. In fact, such folks (unintentionally) have a positive effect in terms of waking up the lazy middle class that Mr. Sandeep chides. Maybe i exaggerate and maybe not, but any wannabe atheist who reads Mr. BJP’s comments here is probably going to rush to the nearest temple and perform an anga-pradakshina.
15. July 2010 - 2:32 PM
Hi Sandeep,
But i always c people around me having a softcorner for both muslims and christians.
thanks for coming up with another good article.You have said it all
Case1:-
What i feel is, when godra masacre took place people where running behind MODI (Perhaps the best Cm in india) and are still running behind him like crazy. Are anybody bothered abt what happened to lakhs of Sikhs who were murdered after assasination of the so called one of the best PM india ever had Indira Gandhi. That case is still pending but our vcentral govt is worried abt our Brothers who were murdered during Godhra.Its good to be fare when ur giving opinion.
case 2:-
Few miscreants entered HIndu temple and destroyed all idols and damaged as much as posible in mysore check out here http://islamicterrorism.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/hundreds-of-muslims-go-berserk-and-terrorize-mysore-desecrate-4-temples-damage-public-property-arson-riot-ransack-furniture-torch-vehicles-pelt-stones-cause-injuries/ And no one is talking abt it right now.When a political party with some moto thronged churches and damaged , the finger was pointed towards BJP govt which is in power for the first time in karnataka.
Case3:-
And finally our Nityananda scam, people enjoyed it like anything and our media was making sure that they cover each and every affair of out Hindu swamiji.But did anybody bother abt the Kerala father incident . Sandeep you managed to cover both i am happy
Communists, islam, naxal,Christianity and OUR MEDIA is nothing but “Polymorphism” one in too many forms
15. July 2010 - 2:45 PM
@sid:-
this is my view.So each and everyone has right to say what he wants.Sandeep has given his point of view and your comment doesnt deserve any reply from his side.Here is mine i don know from how many yrs ur following his blog? look into his previous posts “hopefuly you will get back with better frame of mind” . And looks like you have already made an opinion on lokayuktha fiasco? plz wait for some till our sandeep comes up with one since ur eager to comment i guess 
Hello sir,
looks like you have completely gone through the blog but sorry to say u haven understood much
15. July 2010 - 6:10 PM
=>
Shivaji wrote:
“Few miscreants entered HIndu temple and destroyed all idols and damaged as much as posible in mysore”
=>
But why don’t these idol worshipers realize that worshiping an idol won’t do anything for them? Are they really that stupid? In that case, it serves them right that their idols were damaged – they need to grow up and become smarter (like me). Anyway, who goes to a temple these days when science and Dawkins have confirmed that there’s no such thing like god??
/sarcasm
That’s how the mind of a Dawkins-wannabe secularist works when he reads a news like that – but only when it comes to Hindus. For “minorities”, a different and much more sympathetic yardstick is used.
15. July 2010 - 6:14 PM
Soumyasrajan,
Yes, a lot of people tend to project their violent thoughts on to others whenever they come across Islam being criticized. They also tend to have a taboo against any criticism of Islam, but no such taboo against criticism of any other issue or ideology or person, and label perfectly valid criticism of Islam as hatred.
15. July 2010 - 8:02 PM
@Shivaji,
It was a request to Sandeep, not to you. Can not trust media to bring out all sides and too far from KN to understand what is happening there, that is why I made that request. If I made an opinion, I would not have asked him for the post, would I?
What is your problem exactly?
15. July 2010 - 9:00 PM
BJP does not in believe in his own argument, how he expected others to believe it is a mystery.
16. July 2010 - 12:50 AM
yet another all too familiar example:
http://www.zeenews.com/news641287.html
the vatican’s universal decree – ‘women priests are a crime against faith’. in any country. I’m still waiting for news that shows droves of women’s rights groups in india marching in protest, filing law suits, and GoI stepping in to say they are against gender discrimination and other inane stuff, which they happily did after an similar event in where else, but kerala, at just a single temple, Sabrimala.
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2323
i’m not yet debating the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ here in both instances, merely echoing what many have said here before – the need for a level playing field in the scale and depth of media and official response in situations, or as certain Mr. BJP would say “gender discriminators have no sex”
18. July 2010 - 11:40 PM
@Kaffir:-
Great sir thanks for the amazing reply, thats wat you feel i guess. The only difference between Sanathana dharma and others lie here, You have asked “But why don’t these idol worshipers realize that worshiping an idol won’t do anything for them? Are they really that stupid?” ok its our belief and we appreciate this today tom and needless to say in past as well.We worship idols thats fine, i have seen people worshiping black wall … sorry to say does that make sense ? or some other thing which they feel its worth doing.ITs left to the people, let them worship what they want? The comment of ur shows want kind of worship u have been doing which has definatly made u different from these STUPIDS.. BE PROUD OF UR SELF UR SOMETHING WORST THAN THIS .
19. July 2010 - 12:46 AM
Shivaji, say hello to the definition of sarcasm.
sar·casm
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
My comment was meant to be sarcastic towards the attitudes of anti-Hindu seculars. Obviously, you didn’t get it.
19. July 2010 - 11:01 AM
@Kaffir :-
i missed out on that 
i am sorry .. thanks for correcting
Sorry sir , i got it worng
19. July 2010 - 5:39 PM
Here’s a superb article deconstructing the shills peddling ‘Hindutva Terror’
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2010/07/19/myth-of-hindutva-terror/comment-page-1/#comment-82664
20. July 2010 - 8:46 PM
@Ot Dude I am impressed. I have not followed the whole thing. But your “…..resist the masquerading of intolerance as faith etc etc……….” comment is sort of enlightening.
21. July 2010 - 2:28 AM
Bhagwad Jal Park – atheist, eh? Then you better take a side that do not slice you up – pronto. It is all nice and good mouthing self-righteous “terrorists are terrorrists” tag line; but I sugest you stop being a atheist FANATIC and think about survival of your own mortal cellular form once in a while. Hussain ran away – instead of facing the courts. Guess what would have happened to him if tried his skills targettng the mono cultists.
24. July 2010 - 9:32 PM
As per the Chief Minister of Kerala, PFI wants to turn Kerala into a muslim majority state. Whether the fate of pandits waiting to happen to us too.
http://expressbuzz.com/states/kerala/pfi-wants-kerala-to-be-muslim-majority-state-vs/192566.html
26. July 2010 - 12:37 PM
Hindu Spiritual leaders are repeatedly ignored for Padma Awards. Read a nice post at http://dashingbytes.blogspot.com/2008/01/reflections-on-republic-day.html
26. July 2010 - 1:29 PM
” Radical Islamic outfit Popular Front of India (PFI) is aiming to convert Kerala into a Muslim majority state in the next 20 years, Kerala Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan said here Saturday”.
The Congress, Muslim League, Jamat E Islami are incensed on the above statement. According to them it is against the entire Muslim Community. Whatever the Chief Minister has stated is against PFI. How can they take it as against the entire Muslim Community. Will they similarly object to if something is said about RSS as if it is against the entire Hindu Community. This clearly shows the double standards of CONGRESS and its allies.
http://dailypioneer.com/271594/VS-statement-on-NDF-irks-Oppn-Muslims.html
26. July 2010 - 5:39 PM
Sandeep you have exposed sinister Islam, but what about crimes committed on names the only saviour of Humanity Jesus by christians. I remember around the globe it was Orissa violence in 2008, i searched on my own and read personal blog’s and found out that the main reason of violence is to throw the tribal culture of Kandha tribes of Kandhamal, all panas have got converted to christanity and are taking reservation benmefits of kandha. The book Orissa in the Cross fire by Brraon Parker, an american. He is researching on tribal culture across the Globe. This book is worth reading by all to understand the design of christanity twin sister of islam to capture power through jesus. It can be freely downloaded at http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/orissa-in-the-crossfire-kandhamal-burning/6046401.
Sandeep i hope you will also read the book and take media to task for tarnishing image of india abroad based on rumours instead of facts. Mr parker has bared all the facts.
6. August 2010 - 1:36 PM
John Dayal’s comment present an interesting perspective. First he makes a stealthy warning of legal action. Then showers God’s blessings. Typical Christian shenanigan. Well, Mr. Dayal, I regret to inform you, after you leave your earthly existence, you will find a cauldron of boiling oil with your name on it. Your soul is mine!
7. August 2010 - 3:33 AM
On a lighter note. Quite a misnomer that an atheist has a Bhagawad in his name
Its been long since i heard names like NewtonRaja, Stalin Kandasami , Tolstoy muthusami et all 
15. August 2010 - 4:07 PM
‘I Am More Spiritual Than Religious; Besides I Am Not A Fanatic’ – Aamir Khan.
“We never practiced each other’s religion neither did we force each other to do so. But, of course, I had made it very clear that my kids will always follow only Islamic religion.”
When he is not a fanatic why he is insisting that the kids born to his hindu wives have to follow Islamic religion. Read the full story and draw your own conclusions.
http://www.newkerala.com/news2/fullnews-20627.html
15. August 2010 - 8:00 PM
To KSV,
I have a very obtuse brain.
This interview took place or it is a satire like some kind?
I can not write any thing!
15. August 2010 - 8:29 PM
To radical Humanist,
It is a good link (some Islamic website on Q & A) you gave. That is what Islam is all about.
It abrogates every other religion.
15. August 2010 - 9:25 PM
Comment posted by Bhagawat: (12th July 11:39PM)
“Condemn intolerance and bigotry wherever you find them. Because you will find them everywhere. In India, US, Israel, across all religions and ethnic races. There’s nothing inherently superior about one religion or race compared to another.”
This is where he goes completely wrong.
Islam feels superior to all other faiths. The trouble is feeling of superiority has to stem from some where. For Nazis this feeling of superiority is based on race. For Muslims it is based on religion. That is what Koran (their sacred book) does tell Muslims again and again, in the verse after verse. There are at least about 60 verses which imply Muslims are superior and others are inferiors. The verse 3:110 literally tells Muslims are THE BEST PEOPLE. There is a significance behind such a crude discourse and me writing here makes no difference except that it wastes my time. Bigger problem is Muslims believe in it. This belief is incorporated in to their law book, Sharia or Fiqh.
Again he writes:
“It’s often been said that Indians are the most racist of all people. I’m not sure about most racist, but we’re definitely racist. Whenever one feels morally superior to another group of people, I can guarantee that there’s some deception going on.”
It is not the first time I am hearing this. I have seen some leftists making such remarks which at the best are chimerical. Have you ever seen them giving them any reasons behind this presumptuous claim? You will never find any. The trouble is no one asks them and when you ask them their reply will be accusations of being extremist and right wing.
Same thing here too by Mr Park. He will not say why and how? Of course to expect him to define racism and to prove Hindus are racist based on that criteria is foolish. He is the one who knows best that he has nothing to prove that empty and false claim.
In his blog, he wrote some thing on Hindu extremism (terrorism). But he literally can not connect dots and gives completely meaning less reasons, one such is feeling of superiority. On what basis Hindus in this country are feeling superior? Could he explain? His proof is Murali Manohar Joshi shouting on journalists. He writes preposterously that extremists do not recognize others right to free speech. He is correct. But this is preposterous because this behavior is a symptom of right wingers but not the basis of feeling of superiority. Either way, if this criteria applies our secular, left and liberal intellectuals could equally be labelled as extremists because all the time they only spit and run and reflexively abuse others, asking relevant questions, of being extremist.
On similar lines I wrote my comment in his blog and he never dared to put up that. May be that satisfies his ego.
17. August 2010 - 9:18 PM
@Sri
I assure you I didn’t receive your comment. It may have accidentally gone to the spam folder, but I didn’t find it there either. I would be most pleased if you could repost it (if you still have it around), otherwise, please accept my apologies…
18. August 2010 - 5:34 PM
“Days ago, I started an experiment to reach out to the other side and start a dialogue. Commenting for five days on the blog with a number of people was…interesting. After days of trying, I think I may have made matters worse. If you read the last 10 comments or so, they now seem to think I’m a bigger threat than anyone else! The 170 comments finally ended with an orgy of virulent bashing.”
Says Bhagwad in his blog
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/politics/the-results-are-in-reaching-out-to-the-right.html
19. August 2010 - 12:37 PM
Could it be that so called liberals are also extremists since they denounce what they can not answer from their reasoning?
Yes, there is already a term for this kind of behavior: Liberal Terrorism.
27. August 2010 - 6:53 AM
“Ah, such colors! Communists “teamed up with Christists”.
So the Church was not trying to out-throw the first democratically elected Communist government right from the beginning and it does not continue not to miss any chance to blame Communists for every single issue.
So there is not a sign board in a Church in Ollur, in Thrissur, that says “Communist government fired bullets to the Church here”.
So the Liberation Struggle lead by the Church and Angamalay police firings did not happen.
So the Church had not declared Communists as the greater threat even when Christians were being hacked by VHP in Orissa.
So so.. and so much for so.”
Jo the christist is lying as usual.
The cooperation between christists and Maoists is admitted to even by the arch Hindu hater and your fellow christist nutcase Vishal Mangalwadi here:
“Part of the misguided finger-pointing stems from what Mangalwadi calls a growing
Christian-Maoist nexus.
Mangalwadi says Christians in India need to define their relationship with
Maoists who have been supporting evangelicals there for some time. Frontline
evangelists, for example, are escorted into the jungle to show the Jesus film.
Halfway through the film, it is stopped for a lecture on Maoism and is then
resumed.
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14742”
Nice persecution you christis have after brutally murdering Swami Lakshmananda Saraswati.
Here is a small glimpse of the atrocities your disgusting cult perpetrated in India:
http://www.oocities.com/hindoo_humanist/goa1.html
27. August 2010 - 6:54 AM
“persecution you christis”
Should be “persecution complex you christists”