"Christian" Fundamentalism in West

[devesh]

Carl ji,
you have extensive knowledge of Dharmic thought processes. but you can't apply these concepts to Christian/Islam thought process. it might be easier for us to understand it with our words, but if we cannot apply the meaning of those words, in full originality (without distortion) to Christian concepts and ideas. the thinking process is fundamentally different.

at the most basic level, even the monotheistic instinct of modern Hinduism (Vishnu/Shiva) came from the Vedic inquiry. two adjectives that best suit the Vedas: diverse and eclectic. ultimately, monotheistic strands of Hinduism came from this thought process. even those strains which consciously rejected Vedic practices are fundamentally "Indic" in origin, and embedded in the subconscious, is the Vedic thought process that gave birth to "hinduism."

what makes the "Vedic thought process" so special? simple: it consists of the experiences of a multitude of sages/rishis and ideological streams, and therefore represents a vast array of different thought processes. this diversity is lacking in the Bible/Quran.

you cannot compare the Bible/Quran to the Vedas.

[sanjeevpunj]

Dating the religions will settle any dispute about which came first and so on.Here is a site one can check.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/time/origtime.htm
Below is a graphical display of the timeline of religions.It is not too accurate though, shows Judaism as old as Hinduism.Still, its a easy reference guide.We can see Bahai'ism is the newest of all, and closely followed by some of the fundamentalist offshoots of christianity like Mormons and Methodists and so on.

[devesh]

the above timeline for Hinduism is wrong. latest finds show the same system of religion was followed as long back as 6000 BC. a Shiva Lingam was found bindi/tilak sculptures have also been found. ramana garu posted an article on that.

here it is:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/357607/The- ... known.html

[ravar]

Slightly OT but since this already came up for discussion, felt it should not go unanswered

^^^
...snip... there is speculation, and the religiously fervent "scholars" "like" the theory. this is what they mean by "ratification." Christ was never in India. let alone, coming back from death in India.

this theory was designed to legitimize Christian conquest of India, ... snip

The Church won't bite this theory (even if it is true) because the entire Christiandom hinges on the crucifixion of Christ, son of God paying up/sacrificing himself for the 'sin' of 'mankind' (Adam, that is) and the attending 'moral obligation' of all and sundry in converting to Christ, as a token of gratitude for his sacrifice. For the Church, a martyr and celibate in Christ serves better purpose than acknowledging that he died of old age and that too after his marriage in Kashmir. What would be the alternative story/history to continue with the legitimacy of conversions? What answer will the Church give on the conversions over the last two millennia based on the crucifixion theory? The entire edifice of Christianity will stand on its head if Church acknowledges this. But, irrespective of what the actual historicity is, this Kashmir theory might still be used to give credence to the spread of Christianity in India, by a modus operandi of 'selective amnesia'.

[Theo_Fidel]

So before these privileged ones there was no religion. The Human species lived for 200,000 years with no religion and bang 7000 years ago religion arrived fully formed from the brow of God. Fairly certain people were here in India for at least 80,000 years. Apparently without religion for 90 percent of the time. Very Secular no.

[sanjeevpunj]

the above timeline for Hinduism is wrong. latest finds show the same system of religion was followed as long back as 6000 BC. a Shiva Lingam was found bindi/tilak sculptures have also been found. ramana garu posted an article on that.
here it is:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/357607/The- ... known.html

Yes it is wrong as far as Hinduism is shown, thats why the faded color shown. The more appropriate estimate which is accepted because of archaeological confirmation is around 7000 BC, but in my opinion,Ramayana is even much older than that period. Wiki claims it is even lesser though

The earliest evidence for prehistoric religion in India date back to the late Neolithic in the early Harappan period (5500–2600 BCE).

Theo said......

So before these privileged ones there was no religion. The Human species lived for 200,000 years with no religion and bang 7000 years ago religion arrived fully formed from the brow of God. Fairly certain people were here in India for at least 80,000 years. Apparently without religion for 90 percent of the time. Very Secular no.

Secular,but now we cannot go back to that time!

[Advait]

This topic is going off tangent, but what the heck.

Christians(liberal, mainstream and the savior-kind) think they can shut us up by bringing up the caste issue and their usual stuff in regards to Hindu basing. We basically need to come up with some one line zingers to shut them up. The best one I can think of is :

Rwanda proved the failure of Christianity

Them just watch them squirm and go all "Ehh, no that was different, it was blah blah blah"

[joshvajohn]

Rwanda proved the failure of Christianity

Christianity as a religion has miserablyfailed not only Rwanda but also in other parts of the World. For example in Manipur the Kukkis and Nagas both Christians and killed each other after their leaders offered prayers when there was a conflict there. Christianity failed even during the World Wars. No one can defend Christianity not Christianity can claim to be the best example of what it tells to the world at times in some places. This again does not mean the Whole of Christianity is a failure, because many of us have studied in great institutions, for me, Pope's College, which was founded by G U Pope who told Thiruvasagathukku (Saiva Siddhantha book praising Hindu Gods) Urugar oru Vassagathuukum Urgar (which means if you are shedding tears after reading Thiruvasagam you would not do for any other texts. These educational services and social development services were also offered with genuine love for humanity which Ramakrishna himself has appreciated and adopted as a method for his own mission.

I agree that there were failures on the part of Christianity in what they/we preach and practice. Again this logic is true for all religions and image of certain regions in the world. For example calling West in total as part of Christian culture is not correct. calling West as secular too is not correct either. Many may call themseleves Christian but never go Church. Some may go to church but it is minority who go to church in many Western countries. So we need to qualify in what we are writing and saying. This is the same kind of identification given to Hindus and Muslims in many Western countries against which we are trying to remove such ignorance.

Ignorance is what is the real problems often when we identify the other as a monolithic group with similar characteristics for all members. Mass media often promote this in public with selected evidences and with their practices of negative news.
We need to work together in a way that India should not become a country like Pakistan where religious, sectarian and cultural violence have become everyday reality because eachone sees the other as enemy within and without. In our country it is essential to remove the ignorance of each other.

[brihaspati]

Why bring in "Hinduism" to discuss rise of fundamentalism in western Christianity - unless "Hinduism" provides analytical framework or tools that can be used to find the roots of such fundamentalism?

Any jumping into doing == or getting involved into the debate as to who came earlier etc are succumbing to the terms of debate set by the imperialists. There is no philosophy to speak of in many of the currently proselytizing versions. I have asked many times as to what is the specific "philosophical" "additional" contribution that they make compared to what was already developed in India before these proselytizers came here. The only answer that I seem to have got is that "eminent" gurus within Hinduism mucho appreciated this and this religion. When delving deeper into such supposed comments we see them appreciating onlee one aspect - the capacity to unify and mobilize to implement doctrinal dogma.

That only confirms my general contention that there is a repressed admiration of the political-power consolidating militant aspect of these religions from Hindu elite thinkers. From that political tactical viewpoint they also pose the == line as a tactical line. Hence I am not guruvaadi, and I think of these admirers [well they are represented so - as my detailed posts should have shown earlier - that these guys are quoted selectively to try and establish the ==] as human beings thinking and speaking in the context of their times, strategic needs, and their knowledge up to that point of time. Every past thought needs exploring repeatedly and endlessly without submission of the right to inquire to glorification of gurus, patriarchs, apostles or imams.

This insistence on individual query, and no blind submission to the authority of a guru - in whatever form they come, is definitely part of the Indic tradition. This is the only aspect relevant for this discussion - if any aspect of hinduism at all is relevant here. This is relevant because this autonomy of philosophical inquiry is a key factor that destabilizes or obstructs development of "fundamentalism" of the variety we are talking about.

By destroying the "autonomy" of individuals - in organzied, structured, imposition of common thought and dominance submission patterns in a group or society- "fundamentalism" becomes a necessary consequence.

People here have so many times mocked at "group-think" and we still fail to understand why the proselytization imposes a group think [apart from deceptively giving it a "caring-for-humans" association] that accumulates errors and makes its members ultimately feel cheated/deceived/deviated from an imagined or promised "truth". That is the point when they try to return to that "imagined" ideal - and this happens repeatedly and periodically.

[brihaspati]

We will see success in any religion by focusing on individuals who adopted that religion because of circumstances [birth/tactical/opportunity] or out of a genuine personal interpretation of that religion that suits and reinforces their own humane and humanitarian urges. But these individuals cannot be used to characterize the entire faith - when those faiths themselves are constantly consciously trying to converge to a structure and dogma that is just a cover for political-military dominance-submission agenda.

If the individual "humanitarian" efforts really characterized these religions, then such efforts would have had lasting impact on the centralized dogma and persistent imperialist nature of the overall organizations. we never see any such deviation from the imperialist goal and behaviour when it comes to the entire "organization" level.

For every missionary effort that would be cited as the sign of "goodness" - I will show how these citations are individual exceptions who themselves partly were self-deluded in trying to use the framework to achieve personal goals, and how even they failed to have any impact on the overall political agenda of their respective organizations. Sooner or later either they are sidelined after the initial utility of establishing the roots of the organization in a target population - or they are ejected.

If historical examples are cited - open offer - I will show how every one of them support my contention. For two simple modern examples : people can look up on their own what led to, Liberation theology in Latin America and how they were treated after all by their organization. Another iconic example would be Father Daens in Belgium [also look at cases of Abbe Lemire in France and Father Romolo Murri in Italy]. Just a few. I have piles of cases. You will see a lot of hemming and hawing and uncomfortable silence from usual suspects during your search.

[sanjeevpunj]

The original message of Jesus -God's equal love for all beings - was softened down, and claims of "holier than thou" "better than thou" "purer than thou" kept mushrooming, despite the efforts of the 12 disciples of Jesus, who reached far and wide to spread the gospel of Jesus.There were noises from various cultures that did not know about Jesus, and rightly so, because Jesus had come specifically in the west, where anarchy was rampant at that time. Thus, governance became an important aspect, otherwise chaos would occur.
Here is an article that explains how the Church was eventually divided into three basic categories(Episcopal,Presbytarian and Congregational) for the purpose of governance.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_polity

[sanjaykumar]

God's equal love for all beings.

It might help if could eschew propaganda, Western or Eastern.

[Theo_Fidel]

Fundamentalists do have a dominance agenda. They believe however that they are the silent majority. They believe that their policies are favored by the vast majority and have difficulty handling opposition. It is their version of Majority rule. Where the constitution should/does not provide absolute protections because they are not needed.

[joshvajohn]

Christian missionaries before 1910 made statements about other religions saying majority people in other religions do follow false religion with a few individual exceptions who may follow true religion through their individual search and true faiths. It is quiet interesting to see some using the same language against Christianity.

Making some good people as exceptions while making the majority other as evil is the exact language of EJs today. It is not only non Christians but also within Christianity. Some are displayed in TV show saying I was a Roman Catholic or Anglican but after following your TV evangelism programme I have become a true Christian. So we do face this same problem between denominations as well.

There is no justification of creating and spreading ignorance about a particular majority as those subscribing to a particular doctrine as fundamentalists has be questioned until it is proved otherwise. Let us speak here sociologically not philosophically, people who have had a bad experience in particular parts of Europe cannot generalise that everyone's experience will be the same or this is what all coloured people will experience unless it is social scientifically proved. Generalisations based on some assumptions needs to be corrected as they come out of ignorance and can spread ignorance.

[krisna]

Fundamentalism stems from lack of truth.
when there is no truth, something has to fill in to cover it up. No questions to be asked.
Declare it is the final word. It is immutable and non reformable.
A powerful entity of that day will decree that everyone has to obey certain rules and regulations. follow the dictat.
Declare that living influential person cannot be a saint. Only dead ones can be declared as saints. Dead people do not speak truth. They become a property of the powerful entity used for propagation.
Discrimination is rampant on non users of their product called religion. Bring certain words blame them shame them condemn them.
falsely say truth is with the powerful entity only. Kill rape slave do what you want as long as they are they and not us.

Make it as a political business enterprise- where masses are treated as sheep to be slaughtered(converted) by false hoods in vain search of truth.

[brihaspati]

I think the impression has been that when I have accused imperialist politico-military coercive agenda "at the organization level", I am accusing all Christians who follow that organization as sharing in the blame. But an organization can act in a collective manner that need not reflect "individual" "goodness".

There were many ordinary Germans who were against the Nazis - the left, a small portion of the Catholics, and non-affiliated individual or group opposition - even within the army. Does it mean that I cannot criticize the role of the Nazis as an organization? Further, and an even more thorny question - the "majority" of Germans did nothing to stop the Nazis from coming to power [a minority of activist Germans did as part of political activity], or oppose their functioning while the Nazis were on the rampage. If I was faced with the task of dealing with the consequences of a rampaging Nazi organization - would it be riskless for me to model the attitudes of the ordinary "German" as anti-Nazi?

Ideologies cannot be sanctified with the presence of "good" individuals. If non-Christians smart at Christian criticism on similar lines - then that is smarting on terms of a debate set up by the Church. A non-Christian ideology can stand on its own feet as an ideology/philosophy without the crutch of presence of "exceptional good" individuals. The intra-Christianity debate about representations of the "other" is peculiarly Christian. The reason for that is different from the reason I have used it for. For the intra-Christianity aspect - the reason is because the "grace/caring" mission has been fused tactically and organizationally with proselytization. Therefore, to delegitimize a competing strand, the "goodness" the "care/grace" aspect of that competing strand has to be disassociated from the ideology.

I would similarly question the "non-Christian" justa s the "Christian" ideologies - if they peddled exceptional "individuals" as their sole qualifying and supporting evidence. I have to look at the overall organizational behaviour - primarily because of historically confirmed two crucial aspects of organized ideologies -(1) that organizational moves could be different from individual past behaviour (2) individual members may not be able/choose not to counter organizational decisions.

It becomes more relevant for organized religions because of this - and less so for those which are unorganized.

[brihaspati]

A clarification again - I think my attempt at outlining one possible reason for generation of "fundamentalism" as a necessary consequence of organized religion and the method of proselytization - has been interpreted as a condemnation of all followers of organized religions being fundamentalists.

But a careful reading of my arguments should show, that I have not made any such blanket generalization. All I have said is that these factors will generate "fundamentalism". The many past and continuing schisms of the Church are reflections of the community searching for "fundamentals", as a continuous process. When entire congregations split - by accusing the "parent" of having deviated from the "true" path - that is an expression of "fundamentalism". This was what I was theoretically elaborating.

It is not a feature only of Christianity. It is common to all "revelatory" ideologies - like Marxism - which also enunciate a principle of "action/mission" ["philosophers have observed history/ the task is to change the course of history"]. Marxism right from birth was a faction-ridden and constantly splitting movement with each child-ideology accusing its parent of having "deviated" from the fundamentals.

[Virupaksha]

Christian missionaries before 1910 made statements about other religions saying majority people in other religions do follow false religion with a few individual exceptions who may follow true religion through their individual search and true faiths. It is quiet interesting to see some using the same language against Christianity.

only before but not now??

[brihaspati]

Christian missionaries before 1910 made statements about other religions saying majority people in other religions do follow false religion with a few individual exceptions who may follow true religion through their individual search and true faiths. It is quiet interesting to see some using the same language against Christianity.

Are you positive that the "missionaries" have stopped making such statements after 1910 about "other" religions?

[brihaspati]

joshvajohn ji, the following has not been declared to be heretical by the RCC. [even if Pope Benedict XVI has made statements that can be quite confusing in contrast to the clear cut dogmatic statement apparently made here by a devout Catholic].

http://traditionalromancatholicism.org/ ... 16-34.html

Q. 25. Do we not see, even among false religions, many serious, well disposed people, who live good lives, and are even devout and pious in their own way; and is it not hard to think, that if such should die in their own way; they will not be saved?

A. But is it not much more reasonable in itself, as well as conformable to the whole tenor of what God has revealed, to say, that if they be truly such before God, as they appear in the eyes of men, and such as He knows will continue to correspond with the graces he gives them, He will not allow them to die in their false religion; but will undoubtedly bring them to the True Faith before they die? The door of salvation is by no means shut against such people by any thing here advanced; the only difficulty is about the way they can get at it. By supposing they can reach it, though they die in their false religion, is supposing God to act contrary to Himself, and in opposition to everything He has revealed to men upon this matter; [...] It was not enough for their salvation to be acknowledged to be His sheep; and because they were so, it was necessary that they should be united to the fold to which they did not belong. The same thing must then be the case of those we hear speak of; They are sheep of Jesus Christ, because He foresees they will at last be saved; but, as they are not at present within the fold of His Church, in order to secure their salvation, "them also He must bring," before they die, that there may be "one flock, and one shepherd."



Q. 26. This is VERY strong indeed. But, as this is a great case which many pretend to lay a great stress upon, whence arises the weight it seems to have with them in favor of those who even die in a false religion?


A. Their mistake arises from the idea they form to themselves of good works, and from their not observing the vast difference there is between natural good moral actions, and supernatural Christian good works, which alone will bring a man to heaven. How ever corrupted our nature is by sin; yet there are few or none of the seed of Adam but have some good natural dispositions, some being more inclined to one virtue, some to another. Thus some are of a humane benevolent disposition, some tender-hearted and compassionate towards others in distress; some just and upright in their dealings; some temperate and sober; some mild and patient; and so of others, and some also having a natural turn to devotion, and a kind of respect for the Supreme Being. Now, all such good natural dispositions of themselves are far from being Christian virtues, and altogether incapable of bringing a man to heaven. They indeed, make him who has them, agreeable to men, and procure him esteem and regard from those with whom he lives; but they are of no avail before God with regard to eternity. [...]We are told that one of their number [Pharisees] went up to the temple to pray, who was in the eyes of the world a very good man, led an innocent life, free from those grosser crimes which are so common among men, fasted twice a week, and gave tithes of all he possessed; yet Christ Himself assures us that he was condemned in the sight of God. All this shows to a demonstration, that none of the above good dispositions of nature are capable of themselves to bring a man to heaven, who lives according to them, and the reason is, because "there is no other name given to man under heaven, by which we can be saved, but the Name of Jesus only," (Acts iv. 12); therefore no good works whatsoever, performed through the good dispositions of nature alone,can ever be crowned by God with eternal happiness. To obtain this glorious reward, our good works must be sanctified by the blood of Jesus, and become Christian virtues.

[Advait]

All the you guys are missing the main point I am making here - the fact that Christians bring up the word caste and most Hindus go on the defensive. Somebody here (on BR) had made a similar comment w.r.t Hindus vs Muslims debates.

When we say "Rwanda proved the failure of Christianity" it sends Christians into a apology/explanation mode. It is a very good one-liner and we need more like them. And this is a very good way to get them to back down and strengthen our stance within our own people. Because like it or not, most people are not going to have big theological debates over which religion is better. Sometimes, Hindus do too much thinking and seems like we are not aware of the power of propaganda.

Not a single major Christian organization has said that it respect Hinduism. They will say some Hindus are good etc but Hinduism = caste + cow = bad.

On the other hand, even our so-called right and extreme Hindu organizations will say that certain Christian individuals or certain Christian organizations are not behaving properly. Even they will never badmouth Christianity itself.

And like it or not, overwhelming majority of Christian masses have a negative view of Hinduism and even if they are friends with you, feel they have something to teach you. How they do it depends on their personality. If they are jerks, they will do so in a haughty, imperial manner or if they are decent people as trying to help you etc.

So if they are not going to respect our religion, we should treat them the same way.

[Arjun]

Some thoughts aimed at bringing in some structure into this debate on 'fundamentalism'....

Fundamentalism refers to strict adherence to and unwavering belief in specific theological doctrines and dogmas of a religion. Now is this necessarily harmful in itself ?

Some of the dogmas that Christian fundamentalists believe in include-

- The virgin birth of Christ.
- The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
- The bodily resurrection of Christ.

For the most part, I will take these as harmless dogmas in terms of broader effect on society. (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether these dogmas stunt the person's own reasoning and logical thinking abilities).

But then there are other dogmas that are not as harmless- where the dogmas explicitly foster a sense of supremacy or promote a sense of incompatibility with non-Christian beliefs (and in some cases incompatibility with more mainstream Christian sects) over matters of faith. It is these exclusivist dogmas that promote the intolerance leading to aggressive proselytization and instances of religious 'crusading' and terrorism.

So the problem is not as much with fundamentalism per se, but with the degree to which these fundamentals are based on exclusivist dogma. Different sects within Christianity vary in the degree to which their dogmas are exclusivist or supremacist. It would be useful to document the various sects within Christianity on this thread and the specific exclusvist messages and practices that are associated with each.

[joshvajohn]

Advait - Any discrimination in the name of religion or caste or gender or sex is wrong. Even within Christianity we are struggling with caste and gender discrimination. This should be questioned and challenged and transformed.

Arjun - you are right but having an exclusive faith as a core faith for a particular religion is not wrong as long as the outsider or nonbeliever of their doctrine is not considered to be enemy or threat to themselves. Every religion that is related to particularity claim to be universally relevant and unique in itself. only problem is with imposing it on others who do not belong to them. Any mature religion would not impose theirs even within their own members.

Brihaspati - even after 1910 such practices are there. Now many Western people are working hard to understand and relate to neighbours who happen to be a Muslim or a Hindu in the West. In such context hatred and ignorance is not going to help and so understanding and better relationship is what is going to work. But even the concept of multiculturalism is seen as if it favours non-westerners and remains anti-westerners. It is essential that every culture and religion are respected without trying to fight one over the other with their superiority or inferiority complexes and also not trying forcefully preach on others what they believe in. It is essential to become mature in order to reach out to a state where mutual respect of humanity becomes clear.


Let me also make clear that there is no religion which is not influenced by other religious concepts and ideas. There is no isolated concept of Christian or any other faith which can claim to be pure and superior to others. Even what is charismatic Christianity in America is basically brought by African Traditionalists. Some of their practices are not found even in the Bible such as pushing down people (Toronto Blessing).

My suggestion is not to mix Wester Countries with Christian religion as they are all not necessarily Christian and also not to mix secular with Christianity though some Christians in the West may have considered themselves as secular Christian. Some even learn yoga in the church hall and think that they are Christians. The spectrum of being Christian is quiet huge in which one may find people with extremist agenda which needs to be corrected but not necessarily all under the same category, even not a majority I suppose.

[ManishH]

It is essential that every culture and religion are respected without trying to fight one over the other with their superiority or inferiority complexes and also not trying forcefully preach on others what they believe in. It is essential to become mature in order to reach out to a state where mutual respect of humanity becomes clear.

JoshvaJi: on the macro level, this policy of "equality" of every culture sounds fine. But there is a tendency to make "equality" as a desirable objective only in lands like India. "Equality" and "Respect" aren't even on the table for discussion in regions (the West) dominated by Christian culture.

IOW, the West is de-facto more fundamentalist from the culture point-of-view than India. But somehow, it is India where demands for "equality" are pressed with greater vigour than anywhere else. How ironic that USA is sending a envoy to monitor religious freedom in India and not Australia or even UK. The latter two countries are where Hindus have waged many a struggle to practice their rituals.

And isn't the "equality" itself unnatural ? Why would a land and folk offer "equality" to a non-indigenous culture ? There are only two circumstances where the concession of "equality" is offered to non-indigenous philosophies:

1. Inadequacy of indigenous culture to satisfy material needs
2. Elite dominance model - where the ruling class is won over by a non-indigenous culture - like Constantine

I'll always have "respect" for certain principles of a foreign culture like Christianity - eg forgiveness while noting that these principles are in harmony with Indic thought, but not a really a gift to it. India will always offer "tolerance". But "equality" is too steep a demand to place upon India and for which there's no real need.

Perhaps when the West has made appropriate corrections to the fundamentalist streak in it's socio-political structure, such things will become possible.

[Arjun]

Arjun - you are right but having an exclusive faith as a core faith for a particular religion is not wrong as long as the outsider or nonbeliever of their doctrine is not considered to be enemy or threat to themselves. Every religion that is related to particularity claim to be universally relevant and unique in itself. only problem is with imposing it on others who do not belong to them. Any mature religion would not impose theirs even within their own members.

Joshvajohn - are you referring to proselytization when you talk of 'imposing religion on others'?

Also, if we are to make progress in getting to a solution we need to define what is meant by 'nonbeliever should not be considered an enemy'.

Some extremist Christian sects claim themselves to be the only true church and all other Christian denominations to be false churches. Do you view that as acceptable?

That leads to the question of whether statements such as 'Gods other than ----- are false Gods' or 'Idolatry is a sin' are acceptable. Presumably adherents who take these messages literally would not be inclined to view pagans with much respect (since you've referred to 'respect' as a normative ideal). Where precisely do you draw the line?

Seventh Day Adventists, Pentacostals, JW and other sects have been touted by some as problematic and fundamentalist. What exactly is it about these sects that is problematic? Unless we define the problem clearly we would have difficulty in making headway with a solution.

[sanjaykumar]

For the most part, I will take these as harmless dogmas in terms of broader effect on society.


Unfortunately, these dogmas are not harmless. An elegiac religion can never be healthy. At the risk of being repetitive, but Nietzsche does say it so well; the church was so determined to find the world an ugly place that it made it so.

[Theo_Fidel]

Manish,

Easy on the non-indigenous bit. History/culture is not that simple.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

India was not always a tolerant place and the majority opinion was not secular. It took a long time of conscious propagation, esp. during religious reforms and the freedom struggle to end the inter-religious conflicts and wars. If you go read government archives and records, the India of today has almost no resemblance to the India of say even 1850. We are tolerant because we all choose to be so, not because some religious text tells us to be so or some religious figure/organization tells us to. All religious texts, with out exception, are filled with out dated and even out right bigoted thoughts.

Let me remind everyone, that you have sworn allegiance to the Constitution, which demands you treat everyone and all religions equally. It does not say you have to respect everyone or every religion. That choice is up to us.

All religions have different forms of exclusivity built into them. To not recognize this is the essence of Fundamentalism. Mine is perfect, all others are flawed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me point out we wouldn't be having this discussion on Secularism if the West were not relatively mostly Secular. Secularism is not innate to India. It was imposed on it and it worked. Just as democracy w/ one man/woman one vote was imposed on it and has kinda worked, with all its flaws. There is no tradition of this natively. If Secularism and Democracy died in the West, there are doubts we would be able to keep that flame alive all by ourselves. People who are so enamored of our religious past should go and read up on what it was like.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The key complication with JW, Seventh days, Mormons extremists, promise keepers, etc, is they try to take away personal choice and carry their beliefs into the public space. It is their desire to turn the public space into a religious space. This causes conflict.

[RamaY]

Any discrimination in the name of religion or caste or gender or sex is wrong. Even within Christianity we are struggling with caste and gender discrimination. This should be questioned and challenged and transformed.

Varna system followed by Hinduism is good.Caste system imposed on Indian society by western colonists and Marxist intellectuals is wrong and must be challenged and transformed into Varna system.

Before that Christianity along with Islam is a bigger threat to India and must be challenged and transformed. This has nothing to do with what these faiths teach and propagate in their native cultures. They become hazardous when they interact with native Hindu/Indic system.

[RamaY]

Arjun - you are right but having an exclusive faith as a core faith for a particular religion is not wrong as long as the outsider or nonbeliever of their doctrine is not considered to be enemy or threat to themselves. Every religion that is related to particularity claim to be universally relevant and unique in itself. only problem is with imposing it on others who do not belong to them. Any mature religion would not impose theirs even within their own members.

By continuing to convert Hindus using money, coercion, politics and false propaganda Christianity proves that it is an immature religion. So it must be kicked out of India until it earns that maturity.

[sanjaykumar]

A reading of the Christian past might be more illuminating than the Hindu past.


Let me remind everyone, that you have sworn allegiance to the Constitution, which demands you treat everyone and all religions equally. It does not say you have to respect everyone or every religion. That choice is up to us.



Absolutely. Only I would add because they are Hindus, not only because they are constitutionalists do they even begin to tolerate non Dharmics. That fact must never be lost sight of. Further,Hindus have no obligation to respect Christianity or Islam-the latter have made abundant their own respect for Hindus. Perhaps it is time this asymmetry be put to rest.

[RamaY]

India was not always a tolerant place and the majority opinion was not secular. It took a long time of conscious propagation, esp. during religious reforms and the freedom struggle to end the inter-religious conflicts and wars. If you go read government archives and records, the India of today has almost no resemblance to the India of say even 1850. We are tolerant because we all choose to be so, not because some religious text tells us to be so or some religious figure/organization tells us to. All religious texts, with out exception, are filled with out dated and even out right bigoted thoughts.

Wrong. Hinduism teaches tolerance and oneness with everything else. Only abrahamic religions do not do that.

[Theo_Fidel]

RamaY, You talk like a fundamentalist.

And who decides who is mature & who is immature.

Honestly people learn some history. Esp. first hand. Go talk to your Great/Grand fathers what India was like religiously. Not pretty.

[RamaY]

You can put any tag you want Theo ji.

The quoted part admits the Christianity is not mature. I just pointed that out.

I have heard a lot from my forefathers and read even more about thier forefathers. I know whose shoulders I am standing on. I am not sure about the converted Christians and Muslims.

Which history you want me to learn, the eternal one or the one that starts with Islamic invasions or the one that starts with Dutch/French/British colonization or the one that starts in 1947? Give me a break please.

Please talk on the point I made instead of discussing me.

[brihaspati]

It is essential that every culture and religion are respected without trying to fight one over the other with their superiority or inferiority complexes and also not trying forcefully preach on others what they believe in. It is essential to become mature in order to reach out to a state where mutual respect of humanity becomes clear.

JoshvaJi: on the macro level, this policy of "equality" of every culture sounds fine. But there is a tendency to make "equality" as a desirable objective only in lands like India. "Equality" and "Respect" aren't even on the table for discussion in regions (the West) dominated by Christian culture.

IOW, the West is de-facto more fundamentalist from the culture point-of-view than India. But somehow, it is India where demands for "equality" are pressed with greater vigour than anywhere else. How ironic that USA is sending a envoy to monitor religious freedom in India and not Australia or even UK. The latter two countries are where Hindus have waged many a struggle to practice their rituals.

And isn't the "equality" itself unnatural ? Why would a land and folk offer "equality" to a non-indigenous culture ? There are only two circumstances where the concession of "equality" is offered to non-indigenous philosophies:

1. Inadequacy of indigenous culture to satisfy material needs
2. Elite dominance model - where the ruling class is won over by a non-indigenous culture - like Constantine

I'll always have "respect" for certain principles of a foreign culture like Christianity - eg forgiveness while noting that these principles are in harmony with Indic thought, but not a really a gift to it. India will always offer "tolerance". But "equality" is too steep a demand to place upon India and for which there's no real need.

Perhaps when the West has made appropriate corrections to the fundamentalist streak in it's socio-political structure, such things will become possible.

I am sorry - where exactly did you get this "forgiveness" from? Which events show that it is a core part of the "culture" - and not out of rare and exceptional "individual" goodness events? For this to be true - it should be apparent on a macro-scale, at the level of the state, societal and national decisions. I think it has already been mentioned here about past examples of "Christian" states. Tell me where do you see forgiveness - in Church decisions, in devout Christian princes and national governments, and of course - the obligatory - missionaries in "foreign heathen" lands! The forgiveness part in Christian lore is actually very interesting - and probably shows the real linkage to its shaping up under Roman imperialism. It comes around most strongly around the concept of not-retaliating on the "Romans" for if anyone really crucified "Jesus" it was they who actually crucified the historical Jesus and it was they who had any reason to target the Jews. Thus the clever editing of phrases brings down "forgiveness" on the Roman governor and the Roman soldiers carrying out all the sentences - but does not really exempt the Jews, and skillfully transfers the blame onto them.

The Orissa incident will often be raised - but what about any hint of forgiveness from the very Christian missionaries throughout the colonial period, right from the iconic 1857 conflict?

[brihaspati]

India was not always a tolerant place and the majority opinion was not secular. It took a long time of conscious propagation, esp. during religious reforms and the freedom struggle to end the inter-religious conflicts and wars.

Sure - the intolerance is proved by the existence of completely contradictory intensely debating philosophical tracts - simultaneously, without the reference of the need for those texts to be burned into oblivion. I am surprised Theo-ji, that you are almost repeating the Thaparite representation on "religious conflict existed in India as long as Homo Sapiens sapien emerged on earth". Very few references of direct physical coercion and intolerance exists - only some between some Shaivas and Jainas. Most of the time conflicts only took the form of debates [even the Shankara burning-man festival is a heavily dicey legend, first appearing some 600 years or so later with the official reckoning of his "rampage"] and the most intense physical protests before the stranglehold of Islam appears in Kashmir where the hated "Brahmins" protested attacks on temples/their persons by ritual suicide onlee. The militant religious orders onlee developed post the appearance of the oh-so-peaceful religious migrants from Vanayu and Turuska lands on their annual peaceful pastoral holidays with their holiday security in tow.

Which religious reform actually mentions the need for abhorring violent intolerance? The Bhakti-streams do not mention this at all for obvious reasons - because they never thought of being intolerant in the first place. The other side never mentions this because they thought being violently intolerant is part of divine injunction - so why talk of being tolerant!

If you go read government archives and records, the India of today has almost no resemblance to the India of say even 1850. We are tolerant because we all choose to be so, not because some religious text tells us to be so or some religious figure/organization tells us to. All religious texts, with out exception, are filled with out dated and even out right bigoted thoughts.

I am sorry - records do exist from sultanate, Mughal and Brit times - India's legacy of tolerance came because most "Hindus" chose to be tolerant, in the face of blatantly intolerant invasive ideologies. The very history of their advent will never detach the tag of "intolerance" from their missions, however they may try to whitewash their past. Specific injunctions for intolerance is written into the text-based ideologies - unlike the "Hindu" which is not really text-specific. We can have a spin now on how certain aspects of "intolerance" written into textually imposable revelations - should no longer be interpreted as being appliacble anymore. But the spin is self-defeating because the whole authority of the ideology is based on the formal words of revelation, and anyone who changes the meaning of those words of intolerance will always be liable to be accused of "deviation" in a future time.

We will only begin to trust claims of "tolerance" on text-based ideologies - if we see vehement questioning of those parts of the texts promoting "intolerance" as not just non-ideology - but anti-ideology - to be condemned as heretical insertions on the "pure" original message.

Let me remind everyone, that you have sworn allegiance to the Constitution, which demands you treat everyone and all religions equally. It does not say you have to respect everyone or every religion. That choice is up to us.

Well, then the Constitution is contradicting itself - by having special provisions for special religions. Naturally it cannot say that we have to respect every religion - because that then denies the right of certain religions to continue to abuse one specific "religion". Without the constant abuse of this particular religion as a "false religion" none of whom will ever be "saved" [from hell fire of course] how can a steady supply of "converts" be ensured? However the "hurting" religious sentiments clause must be used "proactively" in positive discrimination to prevent similar "abuse == critical inquiry instead of blanket cursing as false religions" to bde directed back on specially protected religions.

All religions have different forms of exclusivity built into them. To not recognize this is the essence of Fundamentalism. Mine is perfect, all others are flawed.

This if course not true : look Hinduism has already been declared by the highest judicial body to be defined by "tolerance" - which implies that "tolerance" is the overwhelming criteria that should rule Hindu behaviour - which implies that anything and anything thrown at it must be tolerated without any retaliation or criticism. How can you claim all religions are exclusive then!

Let me point out we wouldn't be having this discussion on Secularism if the West were not relatively mostly Secular. Secularism is not innate to India. It was imposed on it and it worked. Just as democracy w/ one man/woman one vote was imposed on it and has kinda worked, with all its flaws. There is no tradition of this natively. If Secularism and Democracy died in the West, there are doubts we would be able to keep that flame alive all by ourselves. People who are so enamored of our religious past should go and read up on what it was like.

Is "secularism" without any "values" whatsoever? There are many people who identify "western" secularism as being built on the protestant reformulation of Christian "values" as shaped further by Calvinist "capitalism". Yes this brand of selective "secularism" is not innate to India - and it always shows its character by being oh-so-tolerant as long as "Christian church" or proximate ideologies [ Islam and Judaism to an extent] interests [subject to relative orders of priority] are not being hampered, or overall imperialist interests of teh country of origin and associated networks are not suffering. Any "hurt" in this direction - off goes the mask of "secularism". Secularism is good onlee if it preserves Christian interests, but if it shows any signs of also protecting non-Christian interests - then it is bad, very bad!

There was no need for such state ensured selective protection "natively" - Indian princes naturally accorded space and protection to all and sundry claims of spirituality - often to their own detriment and to the detriment of the interests of their people. Parsees and Jews fleeing the peace of certain revelations were given space to remain Parsees and Jews, and the Portuguese to remain Catholic so that one day they could unleash the Goan inquisition - so much for the non-existence of any such "native" traditions of "secularism".

The key complication with JW, Seventh days, Mormons extremists, promise keepers, etc, is they try to take away personal choice and carry their beliefs into the public space. It is their desire to turn the public space into a religious space. This causes conflict.

But the entire theology is based on a the "public" mission - the prosleytization - the extension of the private to the public. Unless you are challenging the core text, and the approved extensions - you cannot blame them - can you?

[sanjaykumar]

It does strike one that often simple observation will enlighten more than prolixity and debate.

The next Chief of Air Staff is, I understand, non Dharmic (the opposite of Hindu is non Dharmic, not adharmic; unlike the opposite of Christian which is heathen and the opposite of Muslim being kafir).

I don't expect him to masquerade as a pious Hindu. However in the land of the Baptist human rights brigades, heathens accept Jesus with alacrity before their ascent to high public office. I suppose that is the inherent superiority of the path.

Of course I have no personal problems with a non Dharmic, atheist, agnostic or Martian. I also believe people like Philip here would make outstanding defence ministers in India.

[Pranav]

Let me remind everyone, that you have sworn allegiance to the Constitution, which demands you treat everyone and all religions equally.

There are two issues.

Firstly, the laws of India discriminate against Hindus. So in India, everybody is equal but Hindus are less equal than others.

Secondly, the moment you say that you have to treat all religions equally, that is already wrong. The state should not be "treating" religions, equally or otherwise. The state should relate only to the individual, and not recognize communal identities. This is another major failing of the Indian state.

[Rakesh]

A good read so far...but many are mixing up faith with fundamentalism. If you want to read up on Christian Faith, then go here --> http://www.pbministries.org/. Scroll down to the Archives sub-menu on left and click on any of those gentlemen's sermons.

The God of the Bible is Love, but yet Just. And believers in Christ will be reunited with Christ in the new world to come and non-believers will burn in the lake of fire & brimestone for eternity. I believe in all of the above, but yet I am not a fundamentalist.

What happened in Norway is fundamentalism. Christ never preached that. He never said pick up a Ak-47 and shoot people into submission or make a bomb and blow up a building to show who the boss is. What happened in Norway is someone who is insane.

[brihaspati]

He could not have talked of AK47 even if he wanted to - it had not been invented yet. He also apparently did not speak of building Churches or making the cross an icon. Is not "fundamentalism" all about trying to return to an imagined "core/fundamental"? The debate here is more about whether or not the original textual claim as handed down - and the methodology of expansion of the following, as well as the belief system that you mention - itself does not continuously and periodically generate a sense of deviation from the golden imagined "fundamental" and hence an attempt to go back to that, resulting in "fundamentalism".

From what you say, someone already believing in the "fundamentals" as you describe them - is ideologically a "fundamentalist". You have so far not chosen to act on it. So, yes, maybe we should distinguish between "passive" and "active" fundamentalists. "fundamentalism" here is being used in the sense of "original/core/inalienable/inseparable" - imagined or real.

[devesh]

Manish,

Easy on the non-indigenous bit. History/culture is not that simple.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

India was not always a tolerant place and the majority opinion was not secular. It took a long time of conscious propagation, esp. during religious reforms and the freedom struggle to end the inter-religious conflicts and wars. If you go read government archives and records, the India of today has almost no resemblance to the India of say even 1850. We are tolerant because we all choose to be so, not because some religious text tells us to be so or some religious figure/organization tells us to. All religious texts, with out exception, are filled with out dated and even out right bigoted thoughts.

Let me remind everyone, that you have sworn allegiance to the Constitution, which demands you treat everyone and all religions equally. It does not say you have to respect everyone or every religion. That choice is up to us.

All religions have different forms of exclusivity built into them. To not recognize this is the essence of Fundamentalism. Mine is perfect, all others are flawed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me point out we wouldn't be having this discussion on Secularism if the West were not relatively mostly Secular. Secularism is not innate to India. It was imposed on it and it worked. Just as democracy w/ one man/woman one vote was imposed on it and has kinda worked, with all its flaws. There is no tradition of this natively. If Secularism and Democracy died in the West, there are doubts we would be able to keep that flame alive all by ourselves. People who are so enamored of our religious past should go and read up on what it was like.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The key complication with JW, Seventh days, Mormons extremists, promise keepers, etc, is they try to take away personal choice and carry their beliefs into the public space. It is their desire to turn the public space into a religious space. This causes conflict.

now we are getting to the crux of the issue: the == phenomenon. following in this line of thought, what effect do you think Islamic invasion and rule for 700 years had on North India? what effect did the imposition of draconian "rules" and "morals" have on Dharmic society? Hindu women wearing dupatta to cover up their heads....when did this start?

a society which built the Khajuraho amazingly transforms into a society which restricts women to cover their heads and stay in homes. once again, I wonder how this happened.

when did Sati go from being something that some women chose to do to being forced on the women?

one good data point is that women in South India don't cover their heads. they wear saree without covering their navel or head. in North India, in rural areas, you see women covering heads and wearing blouses which cover most of the upper body. once again, I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that South India didn't have as many joyful centuries under Islam as North India? just something to consider.

and as for the "history of secularism natively," the Vijayanagara Empire would be a very good place to start. India was the first place that invented secularism. otherwise, I doubt all those Muslim traders who first set foot on the subcontinent would have been allowed to stay. or the Jews escaping persecution. or the Parsis escaping persecution. or Christians establishing churches 400 years ago.

Secularism was born in India, long before it was even heard of in the "West."