American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
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.

How would you "allow" somebody the opportunity to be wrong? By not arguing with them? By not executing them?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by loinburger

How would you "allow" somebody the opportunity to be wrong? By not arguing with them? By not executing them?

Define argue. If by argue you mean allow by societal standards reasonable discourse back and forth, by all means. That being said after the "arguement' is concluded the person still maintains their belief system so be it. If some measures of duress are applied, obviously not so.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by our_man

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?

Originally posted by aneeshm

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

Where exactly did I mention Hinduism here ? I mentioned India .

Originally posted by our_man

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?

Originally posted by aneeshm

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 .

Where did I deny it ? In fact , I admitted it ( as is clear from the structure of what I said ) . ( Though I denied it in the beginning , when I was not aware of it ) .

I said that you caught me out on a matter of knowledge , but that your decuctions from this were fallacious .

You seem determined to put every crime committed in India at Hinduism's door . I have read the relevant scriptures myself , and I can tell you that this pracrice has no connection with religion - it is simply one family pissed off at another trying to get even . Let me quote the article you quoted :

Culled from the Wikipedia

Bride-burning is a form of domestic abuse practiced in parts of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh that is often disguised as a kitchen accident or suicide.

Indian police say that every year they receive more than 2,500 reports of bride burning. These women are burned to death over wealth -- because their husbands or in-laws are unhappy with the size of the dowry that accompanied them into the marriage. It is a recent phenomenon (the first bride burnings occurred in the 1970's), and can be attributed to the rise in consumerism & greed, in combination with the practice of giving dowry. Giving dowry upon marriage has been part of most ancient cultures, but it has continued and gone out of control in India, despite being prohibited by law as of 1961.

Note that it is neither confined to India , nor is it a Hindu phenomenon . I , having read the scriptures in question , can say that no such thing is sanctioned . The Manu Smriti states that if there has been any fruad perpetrated in a marriage , i.e. , if the girl is retarded , or not a virgin , or has some other undisclosed problem , and the parents of the bride hide this fact from the parents of the groom , then the groom is free to divorce the bride after he learns that he has been decieved . Note that if the groom and his family have been notified of problems before , then they cannot even divorce on those grounds , much less commit murder .

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Define argue. If by argue you mean allow by societal standards reasonable discourse back and forth, by all means. That being said after the "arguement' is concluded the person still maintains their belief system so be it. If some measures of duress are applied, obviously not so.

Then you're changing your functional definition of tolerance.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

I attack Christianity as long as it claims to be the only true way , but I leave Christians alone. I do not judge people on the basis of their religion.

Then you attack Christianity, and Christians for their sincere beliefs in claiming to be the truth, and not a truth.

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 don't see where aneeshm is suggesting that Christians be forced to give up their beliefs under duress, and yet in your view he's being "intolerant."

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Funny thing, I thought this tradition had something to do with the establishment of a state without an official religion, such as the United States, and their defense of freedom of religion. For all the influence of the enlightenment, one has to question why is it in the enlightened countries of europe, that people would flee from them to escape religious persecution, well into the 19th century after the supposed triumph of the 'enlightenment'. Try being a Catholic in Germany, or a Protestant in the Dual monarchy.

I agree, that Christians have been intolerant, but you also must remember that it has not always been so that Europe has been the centre of power. If there are other powers in the world, that are bent on nothing but the eventual eradication of Christians, then yes, I think that contributes somewhat to the intolerance of Christians at the time. There had been much fear of the growth of power under the Caliphs, especially throughout medieval europe, such that the Christians felt they fought more for their own survival.

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.

True, however, for the difficulties of Christian tolerance towards those whom they disagree with, one must also compare them with other nations at this time. Would you prefer to be openly gay anywhere else then in the West?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by C0ckney


oh. the. irony.

I agree .

When I said you were incapable of proper debate , I gave the reasons why I thought so . You give me two words , which turn out to be meaningless .

Originally posted by C0ckney

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

Can't be cheaper than the shots you're trying to take at me based on my ancestry . Whatever happened to the principle of judging people on the basis of individual merit ( one which I follow ) ?

Originally posted by C0ckney

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.

It damn well does matter . When a movement seeks to revive a religion , it seeks to revive the best within . That is why Islamic revivalism had turned to fundamentalist terrorism . And that is why Hindu revivalism will reject casteism .

Also - I judge a religion by the original conception of it . The caste system does not have its roots in Hinduism , and it is by no means inextricably intertwined with the religion . The separation of which I speak is not artificial - it has already happened in the cities . In the cities , caste is almost completely irrelevant . When it comes to the middle calsses and above , caste is now nothing . There is no caste discrimination in the private sector ( and there is reverse discrimination , or affirmative action , in the public sector ) .

Originally posted by C0ckney

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

The truth is that the caste system is a huge part of rural society , and that it is a source of oppression . I condemn it for that . Your point ?

Originally posted by C0ckney

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

And I'm sure that you'll forgive me for believing the evidence of my own eves and mind over the report of someone who is most likely a foreigner who has not the knowledge not the familarity with Indian culture to even understand it , much less judge it .

I repeat again - casteism does exist , it is a great evil , it is a source of oppression - but I maintain that it is not an integral part of Hinduism .

Originally posted by C0ckney

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.

I know much more about India's social structure than you can dream of knowing , because I live here .

If making very aggressive , if crude , statements could win debates , you'd have won long ago .

You claim that I in India I live in a greenhouse . But let me tell you , Macedonian , that you of the West have been living in a house of the flimsiest glass , only that none have knocked it down yet .










Do not confuse my defense of Hinduism with my clarification of the history of casteism - defending Hinduism does not mean defending casteism , as casteism is not a fundamental part of Hinduism .

[Ben Kenobi]

The "when" hardly seems relevant here, seeing as how your death is inevitable. If you believed that you probably would not be rewarded for your actions and performed those actions nevertheless, then you'd have a valid claim that you're not following a carrot-and-stick "moral" code. However, you're saying that the fact that you might not get your carrot for, say, another 100 years or so somehow negates the fact that you're still relying on the assumption that you're eventually going to get that carrot.

You are quite right, in objecting to the carrot and the stick, but I am trying to show you why that is not the case with Christianity. Christians serve God because they love him, even as they have their own hope of heaven in the next world.

Would you believe in God even without the promise of eternal bliss and/or the threat of eternal torment? If so, then why even contemplate/acknowledge the carrot or the stick?

Good question. The reason one contemplates the eternal reward, is because this is what Christ promises to those who believe in him. However, it doesn't make sense to trust this promise, unless you also believe in Christ.

Would you consider somebody's "belief" in God to be true/valid/whatever if they "believed" only out of hope for the carrot and/or fear of the stick? If not, then why have the carrot or the stick in the first place?

Fear of hell, can motivate some. I can only look at those who profess belief in Christ, I cannot assess whether their belief is valid or not.

Yes, if the compensation was sufficient.

What if they said you would endure plenty of suffering in the hope of seeing a reward that you would only be able to enjoy after you die?

[Ben Kenobi]

Jesus talked alot about God and consistently referred to him as another being or entity.

Yes, it is a good question. However, Christ says, 'before Abraham was, I am'.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by loinburger


I don't see where aneeshm is suggesting that Christians be forced to give up their beliefs under duress, and yet in your view he's being "intolerant."

Of course I would never advocate the use of force in religious matters ! We're not living in the European Middle Ages , or is some barbalic place like Iran or Saudi Arabia .

I judge whether or not an ideology is tolerant by what that ideology did when it had power . Power corrupted the Church , and led them to persucute others . Power corrupted Islam , and it bloodied Asia .

Hinduism , however , even when at its peak , never sought to go out and conquer other lands or destroy other religions .

How many major world religions were born in the Christian world , then the Church had power ? That's right , none . They were all destroyed . The conversion of populations from the pagan religions to Christianity has been one of the bloodiest periods of human history .

How many religions were born in Islamic countries ? None .

How many religions have Hindu India as their birthplace - Jainism , Buddhism , Sikhism . Let us not forget that the Parsees came to India when they fled Islamic persecution , and were welcomed , and are a great community today .

And Hinduism is still intolerant ?

[our_man]

Originally posted by aneeshm





Where exactly did I mention Hinduism here ? I mentioned India .

This is your quote I was referring to:

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 .

I was pointing out that bride-burning was an Indian phenomenon. I have not read of it being practiced by any other culture.

I said that you caught me out on a matter of knowledge , but that your decuctions from this were fallacious .

OK, I got the wrong meaning from what you posted.

You seem determined to put every crime committed in India at Hinduism's door . I have read the relevant scriptures myself , and I can tell you that this pracrice has no connection with religion - it is simply one family pissed off at another trying to get even . Let me quote the article you quoted :

Once again, and with great exasperation, I will say that my comments have been made at India, and not at Hinduism. Read over my posts again and you will see this.

This is all sidetracking anyway - my original post was simply meant to indicate how silly your blanket statement of Christianity being barbaric was.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm

Hinduism , however , even when at its peak , never sought to go out and conquer other lands or destroy other religions .

The religion as opposed to the kingdoms, do you mean ?

Because it was Christian kingdoms and states who did the conquering- just like the Hindu Chola expansionists of southern India who went on to occupy Sri Lanka, the Maldives, a large part of southern India, and even parts of the Indonesian archipelago and Malaysia.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by loinburger

Then you're changing your functional definition of tolerance.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

I attack Christianity as long as it claims to be the only true way , but I leave Christians alone. I do not judge people on the basis of their religion.

Then you attack Christianity, and Christians for their sincere beliefs in claiming to be the truth, and not a truth.

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 don't see where aneeshm is suggesting that Christians be forced to give up their beliefs under duress, and yet in your view he's being "intolerant."

No Aneeshm is asserting that by virtue of Christianity's unwaverinug certainty that theirs is the Truth they are intolerant. His antipathy towards Christianity is based upon their surety of the Truth.

My statement is and was simply this EVERY religion is sure that theirs is the way to Truth. His specific hatred of Christianity is unwarranted/or at least inconsistent if he does not likewise hold that same level of disregard for every religion that hold its beliefs as the Truth. His statement had nothing to do with Christain or other religious entities evangelism or forcing anyone to adopt any belief system, it instead was a hatred aimed at a group for merely being sure of their own beliefs. It had nothing at all to do with the clash of belief systems.

So in summary I defined tolerance before as the willingness to allow others the opportunity to be wrong no matter how sure you are you are right. (if you didn't pick up the inference (albeit unstated) at the end of the day no harm no foul no hatred and hard feelings you missed kind of the central point) Aneeshm is not so much intolerant because he feels that Christiainty is wrong but moreover is intolerant b/c he is unwilling to allow that Christians have the right to feel sure of their own belief system without incurring his hatred.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Whatever happened to the principle of judging people on the basis of individual merit ( one which I follow ) ?

must...resist...

And I'm sure that you'll forgive me for believing the evidence of my own eves and mind over the report of someone who is most likely a foreigner who has not the knowledge not the familarity with Indian culture to even understand it , much less judge it .

are you seriously doubting what UNESCO and human rights watch are saying, if so, perhaps you like to provide some proof…?

It damn well does matter . When a movement seeks to revive a religion , it seeks to revive the best within . That is why Islamic revivalism had turned to fundamentalist terrorism . And that is why Hindu revivalism will reject casteism .

really? perhaps you could tell me when caste will no longer matter in india, 50 years, 100, sometime never...?

Also - I judge a religion by the original conception of it .

really? wow. who cares.

The caste system does not have its roots in Hinduism , and it is by no means inextricably intertwined with the religion . The separation of which I speak is not artificial - it has already happened in the cities . In the cities , caste is almost completely irrelevant . When it comes to the middle calsses and above , caste is now nothing . There is no caste discrimination in the private sector ( and there is reverse discrimination , or affirmative action , in the public sector ) .

The truth is that the caste system is a huge part of rural society , and that it is a source of oppression . I condemn it for that . Your point ?

i think you are missing the point, the caste system dominates the social structure in rural areas, in other words most of the country and for most of the people. it affects every area of life, both secular and religious, the actual effects on people and the indignities they suffer simply because of an accident of birth are detailed in the reports i have linked to. these are not things which happened in the distant past, they are things which are going on today and despite having been illegal for half a century, and there is no indication of it stopping.

and once again we return to what started it all, YOU calling everyone else barbarians, what i want to know is that considering everything that we’ve discovered about your society, how you can stand by this statement. or perhaps you’d like to retract it?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


True, however, for the difficulties of Christian tolerance towards those whom they disagree with, one must also compare them with other nations at this time. Would you prefer to be openly gay anywhere else then in the West?

Which is why Canada, Netherlands, Great Britain, Spain, Germany and any others I forgot to mention are more progressive and free in this regards, than United States.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom


The religion as opposed to the kingdoms, do you mean ?

Because it was Christian kingdoms and states who did the conquering- just like the Hindu Chola expansionists of southern India who went on to occupy Sri Lanka, the Maldives, a large part of southern India, and even parts of the Indonesian archipelago and Malaysia.

Assuming that what you say is correct , was the goal of such expansion religious in nature , and did the religion sanction or encourage the activity ? I would say that the answer to both these questions is "no" .