American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[Mr. Harley]

Aneeshm - thanks for continuing to post. It is always interesting to read the experiences of one who actually grew up with the religion/lives(d) in the country. BTW, straw men and ad hominem attacks are par for the course here at Apolyton, so don't get offended. Just keep making your points - though I suggest check out those links concerning Hinduism and its expansion (of course we are talking about something a millenia ago. Neither Christianity nor Islam can claim THEIR last agressive acts occured that far back . A couple of comments.

The Caste system is not per se something that grew directly out of the Sacred Texts of Hiduism, but is an interesting corollary due to the concept of uncleanliness. Thankfully Christianity has almost completely abandoned that idea, and the Jewish and Muslim takes on it have developed along different lines. It is one of those unpleasant parallel developments mixing up local culture and religion, like vaginal circumcision/mutilation in parts of the Muslim world. That is not in the Muslim Sacred Texts, but those texts don't prohibit it, they set up the conditions (specific inequality for women), and the local cultures already practiced it.

Do other Hindus, for example in Bali, practice the caste system? I would think not to the same degree or we would have heard of it, though I could indeed be wrong. That would indicate a cultural element as well, which would tie into Aneeshm's arguments. I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Refence BK commenting on Christian tolerance - there is over a Millenia and a half of historical Christian intolerance. The Enlightenment, and its traditions, are what have given us the Western tendency towards tolerance. That, coupled to the vicious, depopulating intra-Christian wars which finally taught the populations and leadership in those areas that tolerance just might be a good idea. Now BK is right that there is a tradition of Christian tolerance, and that in the modern era it predominates - unless you are gay in the United States. Just to point out that even today we are not completely free of it.

With regards to Islam, I have already commented that its modern record does not seem to indicate that it plays well with others. In fact the record is pretty dismal. Aneeshm has talked about the elephant in the room, which many of us in the West avoid because of that tradition of tolerance. I have read much of the Koran, and found the same message he has. I need to read the Hadith, and may work on it given the link he supplied.

Taoism

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


I believe the argument is actually an attack against any religion regardless of tolerance as they all essentially believe theirs is the truth.

How very intolerant a view, no?

I attack Christianity because it claims it is the only way , and rejects all others . If it accepted that there is more than one way to what it calls the truth , then I can live with it .

Why is it that wherever Islam has spread , it has been almost always by the sword ? And that Muslims ( unless they give up the fundaments of their religion ) seem to be incapable of living anywhere except in a Islamic state ?

I cite my country as an example . The Muslim community has ghettoised themselves - in spite of the fact the nobody asked them to do so . They were apparently incapable of accepting the fact that Islam failed in India , that its power was destroyed , the Hinduism is now resurgent , and now they have ( almost literally ) walled themselves into their little areas , where you feel as if you have been transported into a different land , a different time . As an example , I give you the name of this site , from which I have culled this little story :

Originally written by Sita Ram Goel

Long ago, some 12 or 13 years before Partition, I had a chance to pass by a meeting of Muslims in Delhi. The chaste Urdu and the weighty voice of the man making the speech at the moment, made me stand and stare. It was a bearded mullah wearing a fez. He was narrating some history which was new for me.

The mullah mentioned several dates on which some decisive battles had been fought and won by the armies of Islam. I was not familiar with the names of the heroes and generals who had led those armies. But I knew the names of the countries which, according to the mullah, had been conquered and converted en masse to Islam in rather short spans of time - Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Iran, Khorasan, Turkistan and so on. There were repeated references to swords and spears and horses and hoofs and countless clashes in which human blood had flowed copiously. In between, some one from the audience stood up and shouted ‘nãra-i-takbîr’. And the whole assembly roared back Allãh-o-Akbar with full-throated frenzy.

Then the speaker moved to Sind and Hind. He recounted the many ‘miracles’ which Islam had wrought here with the might of its sword as well as the spell of its Sufis, for more than a thousand years. I knew some of those ‘miracles’ from my own text-books of history, though I had never suspected that they could be made to sound so superhuman as in the mouth of this mullah. And then, all of a sudden, the mullah’s voice sank and became almost a whimper. His face too must have fallen, though I could not see it from the distance at which I was standing. He was now telling, in very mournful tones, how Islam had failed to fulfil its mission in this ‘kambakht (unfortunate) mulk (country)’ which was still crawling with kufr (infidelism) in spite of all those arduous endeavours undertaken by the heroes of Islam. A funeral silence fell on the audience, and no one now stood up any more to invite another nãra-i-takbîr. I moved away from the meeting and sat down in another part of the same park where the mullah’s voice reached me no more. But after some time the atmosphere was rent again by another bout of Allãh-o-Akbar. I wondered what spell the mullah had spread over his audience again.

One thing that had puzzled me a good deal in the mullah’s speech was his description of the great Gañgã as a dahãnã (rivulet) instead of as a daryã (river). I had not seen the Gañgã so far with my own eyes. But my text-books of geography had told me that it was a mighty river, one of the four or five biggest and longest in the world. The mullah’s description of it did not fit with a known fact. He was a middle-aged man, and sounded rather well-read in history and geography. I thought that he should have known better.

It was many years later that one day Professor Balraj Madhok cited to me the famous couplet of Altaf Husain Hali in which the Gañgã had been contemptuously described as a dahãnã.1 I was suddenly reminded of the speech I had heard as a school boy. But by now I had acquired a good knowledge of medieval Indian history. A new image of medieval India had also emerged in my mind by reading K.M. Panikkar’s A Survey of Indian History. It was no more the India of Muslim monarchs ruling leisurely over a large empire, building mosques and mazãrs and madrasas and mansions, and patronizing poets and other men of letters. On the contrary, it was the story of the long-drawn-out war which took a decisive turn to the disadvantage of Islamic imperialism with the rise of Shivaji. The war had ended in a victory for the Hindus by the middle of the 18th century.

The story is an example of how the community of Muslims in India is not capable of accepting the fact that they are no longer the rulers , and that Islam lost . The community still wants a return to what they consider a glorious past . In an attempt to preserve the past and their old identity , they have walled out the winds of change , and lost out on what modernity could have brought them . Now they claim that it was because of Hindu discrimination that they were left behind - a claim which I consider to be the purest nonsense . If , after ruling for six hundred years , a community cannot maintain its position even economically , then there is something seriously wrong within itself , and I ask them to look within and find it .

For if Hindu discrimination was the root cause of their misery , why are not the Parsees ( who were mercilessly driven out of their homeland , whose homeland was destroyed , its temples desecrated , its palaces burnt , its priests killed , the fires burning for more than a thousand years in this holy temples put out , and whose culture totally finished by Islam ) , who , fleeing Islamic persecution , came to India , insanely rich by comparison ? Why did they think that they would be safe here ? Why did they not fear ( and why do they still not fear ) discrimination or persecution by Hindus ? It is because they , too , were tolerant .

You have any idea that the first and greatest leader of the resistance against Islamic imperialism , Shivaji , had given his men orders to never touch a Mosque , even though it was his stated goal to drive Islamic rule out of India ( and even though the troops of the opposing side regularly desecrated temples , and were encouraged to ) ? That is tolerance .







@ Dr. Strangelove :

This is a debate , and if you want to show some proof , show it . Your opponent won't do your work for you .






@ Berzerker


It had been a Hindu tradition , until the coming of invaders from outside , to not counterattack an invader's home country after having defeated the invader .

An example is Prithviraj Chruhan . When Muhammad Ghauri attacked Prithviraj , Ghauri was totally routed , and was carried half-dead from the battlefield . Any other king would have killed him . But Prithviraj forgave him , and let him go back with the whole of his army that remained .

The next year , Gahuri attacked again . This time , Prithviraj lost . Now Ghauri repaid Prithviraj by first having his eyes removed , then by slowly torturing him to death . This to the same man who forgave an earlier attack , and let him take his army back with him , and did not counterattack his homeland .

Does this behaviour ( and it is not unique to Prithviraj , but a recurrent pattern in the Islamic conquest of India ) show a desire to conquer and subvert ?

I doubt that a people secure in their identity would want to destroy another . Hinduism is supremely confident , to the point that it tells its kings not to meddle in the affairs outside the bounds of Aryavarta ( a name for the Hindu homeland ) . A Hindu is not converted - he is born and brought up a Hindu . It is not an ideology that you pick it up one day and leave it the next . Thus Hindus are not insecure , for their religion is not a borrowed one .

The Tamil Tigers are , AFAIK , Hindus , but they're fighting for a different thing , not motivated by religion ( it's a territorial problem , not a religious one ) .







@ Shawnmmc

If you want some pointers on the Hadith , then I have two . One is the complete compilation and translation of the Hadith of Bukhari , and the other is a book titled "Understanding Islam through the Hadith" . Both these may prove useful .


As for the casteism baing a corollary - most great saints have fought notions of ritual purity and impurity . Purity and impurity , the texts themselves say , is a state of mind . There is a great story about this , called The Buddha's Garment . It is a follows :

As told by Arun Shourie

For our texts always point to the lotus -- which grows out of and blooms amidst mire. We are taught of the Buddha's garment: By the time he awakened from the path of austerities to the middle path, his garment was in tatters: there was nothing with which to clothe himself: a coarse shroud which had been use to cover corpse lay discarded by the river: the Buddha took the sheet for his garment -- and thereby taught us to make holy that which we find repulsive and unclean.

I am not of the opinion that Hinduism spread via violence to the Indonesian islands , and I have been provided with no proof that there was any violence . Hidnuism never was , is not , and never will be an aggressive religion out to gain converts .



@ All

Tolerance means that you will tolerate something as long as it tolerates you . If it tries to harm you , finish it . The idea of tolerance , however , has been so far perverted in the West that they are not willing to listen to hate even though the enemy declares it .

An example is the killer of Theo van Goth . In spite of the fact that he stated in court that Islam was his motivation , the press still printed the opinions of "eminent scholars" who tried to refute that view . Because of this , the guy actually said in court that he was being misrepresented , and that his childhood ( however happy or unhappy it may have been ) was not a cause of his murdering the moviemaker - he stated repeatedly that he did it for Islam .



And have everyone here suddenly developed selective amnesia about the Inquisition and witch-burnings ?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by VJ
Uhh... they believe that those who don't take christ as their salvation are going to hell and they want to save them by converting them. It has nothing to do with moral codes.

So these folks believe that some people are going to hell in spite of the fact that they're righteous, while others are going to heaven in spite of the fact that they're wicked? And you don't see anything that might perhaps be a bit odd about this belief system?

This might surprise you, but some people don't need carrots in order to live a pure life...

Given the number of people living a pure life who are evidently going to hell and the number of people living a wicked life who are evidently going to heaven (according to the belief system you've described above), I don't understand your snarkiness here. If the decision regarding who gets the carrot and who gets the stick is completely independent of morality, then obviously those who are living a pure life are doing so independently of the carrot or stick.

[Mr. Harley]

Loinburger.

[loinburger]

I am defeated!

[our_man]

Originally posted by aneeshm


The fact is , they did have an ulterior motive . Did you read the statements ?

Uh... Yes. I said that. Did you read my statement?

You think subversive conversion is moral - and then are surprised that you are considered barbaric in comaprison to those who always debate first in an open forum , and only then appeal to the masses on the basis of intellectual superiority ?

You're trying to rephrase what I'm saying in a negative light. What I'm saying is that in some societies it is necessary for Christians to try and spread the word of God below the radar, often because the rulers of such countries are terrified that they could lose control of their people if they heard the truth.

I have no problem with giving anyone a choice . But I do dislike ( though refuse to ban ) the vilification of everything not Christian . And I dislike the attitude of "ours is the one true way" . There is an old Hindu saying - "The truth is one , but the wise know it by many names" .

Boy oh boy, where have you been? IMHO I think they're too many interfaith and reconciliation dialogues going on at the moment - I can't keep track of them all!

Ummm . . . . WTF ? Where did this idea come from ? Totally false .

True. I've caught you out here. Since you're so fond of wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning

An article from 1996 in CNN

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/18/bride.burn/

It first came to my attention in 2004, when I read an article in the Sunday Times about it (I can't find that one online unfortunately).

Don't live in denial. If you're wrong about this, might you also be wrong about the caste system?

[Sikander]

My bad on the Tamil Tigers, it seems they are part of the Hindu minority there and not the Buddhist majority.

[Berzerker]

Hinduism is supremely confident

Or arrogant

A Hindu is not converted - he is born and brought up a Hindu

What did he believe about Vishnu when he was born?

[aneeshm]

WRT the negative framing thing - India is not one such society , and thus that argument is invalid .

Also , this attitude is damn arrogant and meddlesome - "I think I have the word of God to back me up , so I will go to other countries and feel free to defy the law of the land and cause trouble" . When you are stopped , you cry "Help ! I'm being persecuted !!!" .

Was such bride-burning supported by the scriptures ? No . I know that , because I have read the scriptures in question . So it cannot be attributed to Hinduism .

This is akin to saying that every crime that happens in India is religious in nature , and the fault of Hinduism .




As for thinking you caught me out - it is like saying "you're wrong on one point of fact , so you must me wrong on all points of ideology" . A fallacy .

[our_man]

Originally posted by aneeshm
WRT the negative framing thing - India is not one such society , and thus that argument is invalid .

Also , this attitude is damn arrogant and meddlesome - "I think I have the word of God to back me up , so I will go to other countries and feel free to defy the law of the land and cause trouble" . When you are stopped , you cry "Help ! I'm being persecuted !!!" .

Was such bride-burning supported by the scriptures ? No . I know that , because I have read the scriptures in question . So it cannot be attributed to Hinduism .

This is akin to saying that every crime that happens in India is religious in nature , and the fault of Hinduism .




As for thinking you caught me out - it is like saying "you're wrong on one point of fact , so you must me wrong on all points of ideology" . A fallacy .

Why do you keep trying to reinterpret everything I say? Is it because you can't handle my original arguments? I never mentioned Hinduism in my posts at all - if you look back to my first post, you will see it was directed at India. Hinduism never entered my equation, so why are you bringing it into this?

BTW, I did catch you out. You denied it, but the article is there for everyone to read. I wasn't suggesting that you must be wrong on other points either as you seem to be implying; once again if you properly read my post I asked might you be wrong?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Saves what? Green stamps?

old joke guev.

"Jesus saves, Moses invests"

Then there was

"save Soviet Jews - win valuable prizes"

at least that one turned out for the best.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Tolerance implies that you disagree with the position of the other person, in that you are putting up with what they have to say.

Tolerance does not mean that you believe everyone is equally right. In fact, if you believe that there is no truth, then tolerance cannot be right, can it?

Agreed my point simply was that as a logical extension of the arguement the person should likewsie hold in contempt ALL religions as ALL religions beleive their POV is the Truth not necessarily Christianity.

This does not imply all versions are the Truth but that to hold that all religions believe theirs is the truth (including by the way Athiests) and by virtue of their belief they are intolerant is a fallacy.

I agree tolerance simply says people are allowed to hold those beliefs even if you or I were not to agree that they are the Truth.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Incapable of proper debate , are you ?

oh. the. irony.

I am the first to say that the caste system should have never gone beyond the system of clasification it originally was . And I have said , on many previous occasion , that today the treatment of many of the lower ( though I do not think they are lower ) castes in horrible in the villages . But I say that it does not have scriptural sanction ( specially the sort of thing that goes on today ) . Therefore , it is not a part of Hinduism.

fine words certainly, but talk is cheaper than a dalit's wages.

the fact is that how it started out or whatever the intentions behind it originally, are largely irrelevant, we have to look at the situation today. it is clear that the caste system has its roots in hinduism and is so thoroughly intertwined with the religion and indian society, that somehow artificially separating them as you are attempting to do is ridiculous.

the truth of the matter is that the caste system is a huge part of society, it affects both secular and religious matters and is a source of misery, oppression and discrimination for hundreds of millions of people today india.

from human rights watch's overview of human rights in india 2004

Rights of Dalits and Indigenous Tribal Groups

Despite legislative measures to protect marginalized groups, discrimination based on caste, social, or religious grounds continues widely in practice. Local police often fail to implement the special laws set up to protect Dalits and members of tribal groups.

Dalits, or so-called untouchables, continue to face violence and discrimination in nearly every sphere of their lives. Abuses against Dalits range from harassment and use of excessive force by security forces in routine matters, to mutilations and killings by members of other castes for attempting to cross caste barriers. Dalit women are targeted with sexual violence. Not only do authorities regularly tolerate such discrimination and violence, in some instances they actively encourage it. In one widely noted incident in July 2004, for example, police used excessive force against Dalits who tried to participate in a religious festival in Tamil Nadu.

Indigenous peoples, or Adivasis, have suffered from high rates of displacement. Scheduled Tribes that make up 8 percent of the total population constitute 55 percent of displaced people. This has had a serious effect on the overall development of these communities, particularly tribal children. The government continues to use the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 to displace the indigenous peoples from their lands without sufficient compensation, as is evident in the Narmada Valley Development Project. Tribal groups who have converted to Christianity have been targeted for attack by extremist Hindu organizations.

I'm a Brahmin . I know . In fact , it is possible that I may be treated worse than others because I am a Brahmin . That report is flawed .

i'm sure you'll forgive those who of us who choose to take the word of UNESCO or human rights watch over yours...

you seem to forget that what started all this was YOU calling everyone else barbarians. there is a saying, 'those who live in glass houses should not throw stones', well reading about india's social structure, whatever your personal views on it, it looks like you're living in the biggest ****ing greenhouse in the world.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Agreed my point simply was that as a logical extension of the arguement the person should likewsie hold in contempt ALL religions as ALL religions beleive their POV is the Truth not necessarily Christianity.

This conflates Truth with varying degrees and scopes of truth. Religion A holds that there is/are/were (a) supernatural force(s) that created the universe, but that nothing can be infallibly ascertained about this/these force(s) and thus many different forms of devotion to this/these force(s) are acceptable. Religion B holds that there is a supernatural force that created the universe, that the nature of this force has been infallibly revealed in scripture, and thus that deviation from scripture is a sin. By their very natures, Religion A acknowledges that Religion B may in fact have a better grasp on the Truth than does Religion A, whereas Religion B cannot acknowledge that Religion A has a better grasp on the Truth than does Religion B. Hence, Religion A is the more tolerant of the two.

In other words, it is entirely possible to believe that something is true without believing that something is the Truth. If you're able to entertain the notion that a belief may be superior to your own, then you are tolerant of that belief. If you reject the notion that a belief may be superior to your own, then you are intolerant of that belief. (This is not intended to conflate varying degrees and scopes of (in)tolerance -- "(in)tolerance" is itself a fuzzy word, just like "belief.")

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by loinburger



In other words, it is entirely possible to believe that something is true without believing that something is the Truth. If you're able to entertain the notion that a belief may be superior to your own, then you are tolerant of that belief. If you reject the notion that a belief may be superior to your own, then you are intolerant of that belief. (This is not intended to conflate varying degrees and scopes of (in)tolerance -- "(in)tolerance" is itself a fuzzy word, just like "belief.")

I disagree, the meaning of tolerance to me simply states that even if you feel others to be as wrong as wrong can be you allow them the opportunity to be wrong.

Just because you believe your own beliefs to be superior to those you deem inferior is irrelevant to the tolerance equation no strike that in fact the more sure you are of your own superiority of beliefs and stilll allow others to foster other belief sets to me is the epitomy of tolerance as it marks a wider chasm of core belief differences.