Please hindus, don't say: "All Religions are the Same"

[Agnostic_Indian]

Guy goes on and on about secularism/progressive/rationality but :-

1. Repeatedly uses false equivalences and sophistry to make absurd claims like Hindu terror = Islamic terror. You'll never catch this guy speaking on Malda or the recent story in his own home state where a man's studio was burnt down for criticizing Islamic practices :-
http://www.thenewsminute.com/articl...ld-studio-burnt-down-criticising-purdah-37201

But ask him about Dadri and he will give you entire essay's on the subject.

I never said hindu terroirm = islamic terror, don't try to create a smoke screen, i very well know that and acknowledged the fact that hindu terrorism is very rare where as islamic trrrorism is very big. If i spoke about dadri here then it's becuse of the type of audience here, that's tue same reason I didn't post on malda thread..its obvious that you all condemn the incident, i agree and share your sentiments.we all agree on that. There used to be a poster from pakistan called Neo, i have had many dabtes with him on kashmir issue and other things on another forum, but here i never bothered to debate him, becuse here there is already a big pool of posters defending indian position against him.

2. In this free speech thread, one can see how he keeps arguing against absolute FOS :-

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...jp-watches-silently.74585/page-4#post-1114219

This is after he supports PK movie and cow slaughter despite both being offensive to Hindus. Why this selectiveness about FOS comes into question when Islam is on receiving end ?

In the same thread he gets into an argument with mad_indian over islam, repeatedly told mad_indian that he was spreading "false things about islam ",says terrorists are misinterpreting quran, asks mods to take action against mad_indian for criticizing islam. :-

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...inions-demographics.74505/page-2#post-1112310

Such keen interest to defend Islam by a self proclaimed "agnostic". Always uses the "logical/illogical" trope against Hinduism though.

Yes i opposed uncontrolled freedom of expression. I dont see pk to be offensice, sensor bord has given the green signal too. I didnt find kamal hassan's viswaroopam too to be okey although islamic groups protested against it, what do you say about that ? Where is selected fos ?
However i mentioned somthing really offensive, which is painting hindu godess in nude and vulgar mannner, that was offensive IMO.


Cow is not holy for non hindus and non belivers and in a secular state others right to eat cannont be restricted based on someone elses beliefs.others have no obligation to follow hindu scriptures. And i thought you agreed with me on that if i support Salman Rushdiees and Taslima nasreens books and support criticising islam and koran etc. And i agreed with you on all those things ? Did i disappointed you by agreeing to thise things ?

Lastly I dint complain against criticism against islam, mad indian was calling muhmmad a pedophile, so only i opposed it. There itself i mentioned my stand that abusing with illintention is not criticism.

3. Uses islamist propoganda sites that have obvious ulterior agendas against Hindus. "Islam-Hinduism initiative" and "Sunni tigers" talking about Beef in Hinduism. He could not come up with a Hindu source or even an atheist/agnostic source.

FOr the xxxth time, there is plenty of other sources and a sight being islamic doesn't automatically make things posted there to be wrong. So don't try to clutch on to straws.

4. You can see more of his tom foolery in the paris terror thread, where he was in doubt about paris being a religiously motivated attack :-

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/paris-terror-attack-13-11.73898/page-9#post-1101812

Standard "terror has no religion" trope.


He think people on this forum are foolish enough to think that are isolated incidences and people can't add up things or smell the bias in his posting patterns. There are many more e.g. but I'll leave it for people to judge.

And here is my perfectly rational explenation for that.
I said most probably it's a islamic terrorism. If my position was " ferror has no religion " then i would not have named the terrrorism as islamic terrorism, would i ?
"I said most probably.... in this case it is 99 %..If french govt confirmed it then its 100%. "
I had missed the post which said some terrorist grope claimed the responsibility, thats why my post said " most probably ". but given the hostility you have i don't expect you to belive that i missed that part, lets say I saw that comment and yet said most probably. Even then most probably is enough and apt term to use there. the terrorist claimed responsibility then it's 99 % sure that it's an islamic terrorism. Why leve the 1% chance ? Terrorists often take credit for ops that have not done, so only govt confirmation can make it 100% sure.

 

[asingh10]

This issue has been used multiple times to argue for restricted FOE/FOS. Sometimes harsh/offensive words are necessary to get rid of rudimentary ideas. People must just learn to grow thick skin and digest what is offensive for them.

Personally I wont mind if an artist draws nude or vulgar paintings of hindu godesses. However, if that artist insists that he cannot draw or imagine similar erotic images for other religions and his own native religion certainly raises suspicion. Perhaps more when that person comes from culture which idolizes pedophiles and rapists. So this artist can imagine hindu goddess in carnal position with her son but cannot imagine pedophile prophet raping 9 old girl(sorry his wife). Other members have already pointed out this tendency of Islamist to rub salt on wounds of other faiths intentionally be it bursting crackers when paki wins against india or cow killing. Therefore it is better to give back in kind.

I don't mind MF Hussain paintings either. Charvaka used some really ugly language for ashwamedha and hindu rituals in his polemics yet it was a part of Madhavacharaya's Sarva Darshan Sangraha, and it was accorded same respect as other Hindu sects. Buddha, Jaina, Sikh, Shaiva, Vaishnava etc all have written negatively about each other. This kind of openness is a part of Indian traditions.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...inions-demographics.74505/page-2#post-1112323

Hindus have nothing to fear w.r.t absolute FOS, Khajuraho is out there for everyone to see. Ambedkars writings are out there for all to read. It is the Islamists who have a compulsive desire to hide their history, obfuscate facts, want to ban books, movies and silence people who speak about them. Many Christian and Islamists are so rabid that they want creationism to be taught in schools over evolution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-parents-import-creationism-into-schools.html

^^ This is what happens when you follow an absolutist religion that is forever scared of that one thing which may prove them wrong, so they will go to any length to stop people from speaking out. If evolution is true (IT IS), then the story about Adam & Eve is false - this would lead to the entire theological core of Abrahamisms collapsing.

 

[Ancient Indian]

Sombody here mention that hinduism saying like that,so only in asked. So guess it's not hinduism but hindus who says all religions are same and equal, and but apparently as this thread suggests that hinduism is better than other religions ?

A ocean is always better than small ponds.

 

[VOCvangoens]

Are there examples in the diverse traditions of Hinduism of progressive attitudes towards women? I ask this question in response to widely-held notions in Western intellectual circles that Western attitudes are inherently superior to those of so-called "Third World", Medievalist societies and that any liberalism demonstrated in such societies is due solely to Western Influence.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

That's not even a comparison.
When our religion teaches to worship money(laxmi puja) it means to value money (and not waste it to donate to terror organisations to blow up people) which in no way leads to corruption. Also our religion teaches us to worship animals, trees, sun and all the other components which are essential for a human survival.
Few months back there was a controversy in India where some Muslim parties wanted to boycott yoga due to Surya namaskar because they don't bend In front of anyone other than their almighty Allah which is really stupid as-
1) you are essentially saying no to exercises which makes you healthy ( something like this would be better to write in Quran instead of describing how to punish kafirs).
2) which also means that you don't bend in front of your elders, teachers and other respected people.

Hindusim teaches us respect other people, respect and thank for the natural resources around us(trees,sun,animals,water).
It teaches us how to remain fit and healthy.
It format forces religion on others.
And most important of all it doesn't teaches us to "BLOW UP PEOPLE OR KILL THEM"


Most probably the counter argument will be about stuff like sati and other practices That used to happen but if you actually look in the holy text then you will never find such practices and are nothing but superstition.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

The terror manual teaches to boycott all good things. It deny every civilized thing and preaches those desert rituals and customs of 1500 years back in dark age of desert. As Tarek fatah told to a mullah that it is not mandatory to look ugly to be a Muslim. These people tries to live a 4th century life in 21st century. A complete disregard and wastage of Human life.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

we say all Dharm are equal which means righteous is always right every where.

According to Hinduism, Dharma is something which is for whole humanity. Abrhmic and other religions are for cast , creeds and people of particular geographical area or believers. These so called religions have a very narrow outlook and made for certain group. Hinduism has a holistic outlook and look at the humanity as a whole.

 

[Kharavela]

Left historians connived with extremists, mislead Muslims on Babri issue, says muslim archaeologist in new book.
http://www.firstpost.com/india/left...e-says-archaeologist-in-new-book-2592188.html

In this Jungle, we are intolerant of #Presstitutes

 

[Ancient Indian]

Look at some of the hindu women reviews. . .

She is clue less about what she is talking about.
@Navneet Kundu @OneGrimPilgrim

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Look at some of the hindu women reviews. . .
View attachment 7654

She is clue less about what she is talking about.
@Navneet Kundu @OneGrimPilgrim

'compromise at different levels'. should've asked her about level MINORITY & the compromises she expects the pampered lot of this country to make in order for peace to prevail 'constantly'.

 

[Ancient Indian]

'compromise at different levels'. should've asked her about level MINORITY & the compromises she expects the pampered lot of this country to make in order for peace to prevail 'constantly'.

Lack of pride can make one compromise at different levels.
Ask some village woman the same question, You will get jadu(sweeper) on your back.

Our education can make people so much peace loving.

 

[garg_bharat]

The current Hinduism is no different from Christianity or Islam. It has so many falsehoods.

Vedic "dharm" is against idol worship. Vedas clearly say there is only one God that never takes birth. God according to Veda is formless (means is not made of matter) and is "jyoti-swaroop" means like bright shining light.

 

[garg_bharat]

Hinduism can never be a uniting force, as it is a mish-mash of beliefs with no central well defined core, which can hold.

 

[garg_bharat]

The current secular structure of India is proving to be a much greater political force than Hindu religion. So let us keep it this way.

 

[Ancient Indian]

The current Hinduism is no different from Christianity or Islam. It has so many falsehoods.

Vedic "dharm" is against idol worship. Vedas clearly say there is only one God that never takes birth. God according to Veda is formless (means is not made of matter) and is "jyoti-swaroop" means like bright shining light.

Vadic Dharm is not against idol worship.

Idol is tool to keep the presence of Brahman. So that they can get connected with it.

 

[Vishwarupa]

Another one from Maria:

Article by Maria Wirth

Though I have lived in India for a long time, there are still issues here that I find hard to understand. For example, why do so many educated Indians become agitated when India is referred to as a Hindu country? The majority of Indians are Hindus. India is special because of its ancient Hindu tradition. Westerners are drawn to India because of Hinduism. Why then is there this resistance by many Indians to acknowledge the Hindu roots of their country? Why do some people even give the impression that an India which valued those roots would be dangerous? Don’t they know better?

This attitude is strange for two reasons. First, those educated Indians seem to have a problem only with “Hindu” India, but not with “Muslim” or “Christian” countries. Germany, for example, is a secular country, and only 59 percent of the population are registered with the two big Christian churches (Protestant and Catholic). Nevertheless, the country is bracketed under “Christian countries” and no one objects. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, stressed recently the Christian roots of Germany and urged the population “to go back to Christian values.” In 2012 she postponed her trip to the G-8 summit to make a public address on Katholikentag, “Catholics Day.” Two major political parties carry Christian in their name, including Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union.

Germans are not agitated that Germany is called a Christian country, though I actually would understand if they were. After all, the history of the Church is appalling. The so-called success story of Christianity depended greatly on tyranny. “Convert or die” were the options given—not only some five hundred years ago to the indigenous population in America, but also in Germany, 1,200 years ago, when the emperor Karl the Great ordered the death sentence for refusal of baptism in his newly conquered realms. This provoked his advisor Alkuin to comment: “One can force them to baptism, but how to force them to believe?”

Those times, when one’s life was in danger for dissenting with the dogmas of Christianity, are thankfully over. Today many in the West do dissent and are leaving the Church in a steady stream. They are disgusted with the less-than-holy behavior of Church officials and they also can’t believe in the dogmas, for example that “Jesus is the only way” and that God sends all those who don’t accept this to hell.

The second reason why I can’t understand the resistance to associate India with Hinduism is that Hinduism is in a different category from the Abrahamic religions. Its history, compared to Christianity and Islam, was undoubtedly the least violent as it spread in ancient times by convincing arguments and not by force. It is not a belief system that demands blind acceptance of dogmas and the suspension of one’s intelligence. On the contrary, Hinduism encourages using one’s intelligence to the hilt. It is an enquiry into truth based on a refined character and intellect. It comprises a huge body of ancient literature, not only regarding dharma and philosophy, but also regarding music, architecture, dance, science, astronomy, economics, politics, etc. If Germany or any other Western country had this kind of literary treasure, it would be so proud and highlight its greatness on every occasion. When I discovered the Upanishads, for example, I was stunned. Here was expressed in clear terms what I intuitively had felt to be true, but could not have expressed clearly. Brahman is not partial; it is the invisible, indivisible essence in everything. Everyone gets again and again a chance to discover the ultimate truth and is free to choose his way back to it. Helpful hints are given but not imposed.

In my early days in India I thought every Indian knew and valued his tradition. Slowly I realized I was wrong. The British colonial masters had been successful in not only weaning away many of the elite from their ancient tradition but even making them despise it. It helped that the British-educated class could no longer read the original Sanskrit texts and believed what the British told them. This lack of knowledge and the brainwashing by the British education may be the reason why many so-called “modern” Indians are against anything Hindu. They don’t realize the difference between Western religions that have to be believed (or at least professed) blindly, and which discourage, if not forbid, their adherents to think on their own, and the multi-layered Hindu Dharma which gives freedom and encourages using one’s intelligence.

Many of the Indian educated class do not realize that those who dream of imposing Christianity or Islam on this vast country will applaud them for denigrating Hindu Dharma, because this creates a vacuum where Western ideas can easier gain a foothold. At the same time, many Westerners, including staunch Christians, know the value of Hindu culture and surreptitiously appropriate insights from the vast Indian knowledge system, drop the original Hindu source and present it either as their own or make it look as if these insights had already been known in the West. As the West appropriates valuable and exclusive Hindu assets, what it leaves behind is deemed inferior. Unwittingly, these Indians are helping what Rajiv Malhotra of Infinity Foundation calls the digestion of Dharma civilization into Western universalism. That which is being digested, a deer for example, in this case Hindu Dharma, disappears whereas the digester (a tiger) becomes stronger.

If only missionaries denigrated Hindu Dharma, it would not be so bad, as they clearly have an agenda which discerning Indians would detect. But sadly, Indians with Hindu names assist them because they wrongly believe Hinduism is inferior to Western religions. They belittle everything Hindu instead of getting thorough knowledge. As a rule, they know little about their tradition except what the British have told them, i.e., that the major features are the caste system and idol worship. They don’t realize that India would gain, not lose, if it solidly backed its profound and all-inclusive Hindu tradition. The Dalai Lama said some time ago that, as a youth in Lhasa, he had been deeply impressed by the richness of Indian thought. “India has great potential to help the world,” he added.

When will the Westernized Indian elite realize it?

~ Maria Wirth (freelance writer who has lived in India for the past 33 years)

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Another one from Maria:

Article by Maria Wirth

Though I have lived in India for a long time, there are still issues here that I find hard to understand. For example, why do so many educated Indians become agitated when India is referred to as a Hindu country? The majority of Indians are Hindus. India is special because of its ancient Hindu tradition. Westerners are drawn to India because of Hinduism. Why then is there this resistance by many Indians to acknowledge the Hindu roots of their country? Why do some people even give the impression that an India which valued those roots would be dangerous? Don’t they know better?

This attitude is strange for two reasons. First, those educated Indians seem to have a problem only with “Hindu” India, but not with “Muslim” or “Christian” countries. Germany, for example, is a secular country, and only 59 percent of the population are registered with the two big Christian churches (Protestant and Catholic). Nevertheless, the country is bracketed under “Christian countries” and no one objects. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, stressed recently the Christian roots of Germany and urged the population “to go back to Christian values.” In 2012 she postponed her trip to the G-8 summit to make a public address on Katholikentag, “Catholics Day.” Two major political parties carry Christian in their name, including Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union.

Germans are not agitated that Germany is called a Christian country, though I actually would understand if they were. After all, the history of the Church is appalling. The so-called success story of Christianity depended greatly on tyranny. “Convert or die” were the options given—not only some five hundred years ago to the indigenous population in America, but also in Germany, 1,200 years ago, when the emperor Karl the Great ordered the death sentence for refusal of baptism in his newly conquered realms. This provoked his advisor Alkuin to comment: “One can force them to baptism, but how to force them to believe?”

Those times, when one’s life was in danger for dissenting with the dogmas of Christianity, are thankfully over. Today many in the West do dissent and are leaving the Church in a steady stream. They are disgusted with the less-than-holy behavior of Church officials and they also can’t believe in the dogmas, for example that “Jesus is the only way” and that God sends all those who don’t accept this to hell.

The second reason why I can’t understand the resistance to associate India with Hinduism is that Hinduism is in a different category from the Abrahamic religions. Its history, compared to Christianity and Islam, was undoubtedly the least violent as it spread in ancient times by convincing arguments and not by force. It is not a belief system that demands blind acceptance of dogmas and the suspension of one’s intelligence. On the contrary, Hinduism encourages using one’s intelligence to the hilt. It is an enquiry into truth based on a refined character and intellect. It comprises a huge body of ancient literature, not only regarding dharma and philosophy, but also regarding music, architecture, dance, science, astronomy, economics, politics, etc. If Germany or any other Western country had this kind of literary treasure, it would be so proud and highlight its greatness on every occasion. When I discovered the Upanishads, for example, I was stunned. Here was expressed in clear terms what I intuitively had felt to be true, but could not have expressed clearly. Brahman is not partial; it is the invisible, indivisible essence in everything. Everyone gets again and again a chance to discover the ultimate truth and is free to choose his way back to it. Helpful hints are given but not imposed.

In my early days in India I thought every Indian knew and valued his tradition. Slowly I realized I was wrong. The British colonial masters had been successful in not only weaning away many of the elite from their ancient tradition but even making them despise it. It helped that the British-educated class could no longer read the original Sanskrit texts and believed what the British told them. This lack of knowledge and the brainwashing by the British education may be the reason why many so-called “modern” Indians are against anything Hindu. They don’t realize the difference between Western religions that have to be believed (or at least professed) blindly, and which discourage, if not forbid, their adherents to think on their own, and the multi-layered Hindu Dharma which gives freedom and encourages using one’s intelligence.

Many of the Indian educated class do not realize that those who dream of imposing Christianity or Islam on this vast country will applaud them for denigrating Hindu Dharma, because this creates a vacuum where Western ideas can easier gain a foothold. At the same time, many Westerners, including staunch Christians, know the value of Hindu culture and surreptitiously appropriate insights from the vast Indian knowledge system, drop the original Hindu source and present it either as their own or make it look as if these insights had already been known in the West. As the West appropriates valuable and exclusive Hindu assets, what it leaves behind is deemed inferior. Unwittingly, these Indians are helping what Rajiv Malhotra of Infinity Foundation calls the digestion of Dharma civilization into Western universalism. That which is being digested, a deer for example, in this case Hindu Dharma, disappears whereas the digester (a tiger) becomes stronger.

If only missionaries denigrated Hindu Dharma, it would not be so bad, as they clearly have an agenda which discerning Indians would detect. But sadly, Indians with Hindu names assist them because they wrongly believe Hinduism is inferior to Western religions. They belittle everything Hindu instead of getting thorough knowledge. As a rule, they know little about their tradition except what the British have told them, i.e., that the major features are the caste system and idol worship. They don’t realize that India would gain, not lose, if it solidly backed its profound and all-inclusive Hindu tradition. The Dalai Lama said some time ago that, as a youth in Lhasa, he had been deeply impressed by the richness of Indian thought. “India has great potential to help the world,” he added.

When will the Westernized Indian elite realize it?

~ Maria Wirth (freelance writer who has lived in India for the past 33 years)

this tendency goes long back. as i had mentioned in another thread, there were some buggers then too when BHU was being set-up, who had objected to the name 'Hindu' & pressurised the people at the helm to drop it.
call it the effect of a colonial education system.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

this tendency goes long back. as i had mentioned in another thread, there were some buggers then too when BHU was being set-up, who had objected to the name 'Hindu' & pressurised the people at the helm to drop it.
call it the effect of a colonial education system.

Slight nuance there. The act of setting up of the BHU itself was a part of the colonial plan. On one side the Britishers gave moral and material support to setting up of overtly Hindu institutions and on the other hand they also gave funds and encouragement to Aligarh Muslim University. These were set up exclusively to harp on the Hinduness of Hindus and muslimness of muslims. This was done to avoid another united Hindu-muslim alliance of that kind which shook the British empire in 1857. Eventually the idea that came out of this AMU was the seed that grew into a big tree and led to the partition.

They were both established in ~1916, and ~1918. This was by design.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Slight nuance there. The act of setting up of the BHU itself was a part of the colonial plan. On one side the Britishers gave moral and material support to setting up of overtly Hindu institutions and on the other hand they also gave funds and encouragement to Aligarh Muslim University. These were set up exclusively to harp on the Hinduness of Hindus and muslimness of muslims. This was done to avoid another united Hindu-muslim alliance of that kind which shook the British empire in 1857. Eventually the idea that came out of this AMU was the seed that grew into a big tree and led to the partition.

They were both established in ~1916, and ~1918. This was by design.

1857 unity is another part of fake history. They were all local kings fighting for their life+ largely jihad by Muslims.

The British retribution post 1857 was targeted specifically at Muslims. All able bodied muslim men in the north were hunted down and hanged. That is why unlike Hindus, Muslim morale was completely shattered post 1857 for at least half a century before British cultivated new generation of muslim leaders.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Slight nuance there. The act of setting up of the BHU itself was a part of the colonial plan. On one side the Britishers gave moral and material support to setting up of overtly Hindu institutions and on the other hand they also gave funds and encouragement to Aligarh Muslim University. These were set up exclusively to harp on the Hinduness of Hindus and muslimness of muslims. This was done to avoid another united Hindu-muslim alliance of that kind which shook the British empire in 1857. Eventually the idea that came out of this AMU was the seed that grew into a big tree and led to the partition.

They were both established in ~1916, and ~1918. This was by design.

dont know to what extent the erstwhile british govt. had contributed to the funding for it; am only aware of the movement to collect funds for it from the general public. resolution to start a university had taken almost half a decade earlier than its establishment, and an amount of 1.5cr Rupees was decided to be raised before starting the process of establishment (of which atleast 50 lakhs were collected from the public; about the rest am not aware). however given the fact that how later the british started giving the idea their patronage & support (funds, passing of the BHUniversity Act, presence of govt. nominees in the governing body, etc.), am inclined to think that its entirely plausible that the british govt. started scheming to hijack the plan for their nefarious designs after its conception.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

1857 unity is another part of fake history. They were all local kings fighting for their life+ largely jihad by Muslims.

The British retribution post 1857 was targeted specifically at Muslims. All able bodied muslim men in the north were hunted down and hanged. That is why unlike Hindus, Muslim morale was completely shattered post 1857 for at least half a century before British cultivated new generation of muslim leaders.

the whole theatre of the battle(s) seems more like the stark animation of the proverb 'enemy's enemy is a friend'. it wouldn't be far-fetched i guess to think that once the enemy would've gone, the friendship would've gone.