Secular world has a Christian foundation

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
Being from a multi religion family, I find the secularism being paractised in India is a bit of a political skulduggery with oodles and oodles of bogus crocodile tears being shed and turning the concept of secularism on its head!

I feel secularism means equality without religious consideration in all issues that are temporal and not spiritual!

Even today there is an opinion by Deleep Padgoankar in TOI with the title 'Across the Secular Divide'. He is the same man who enjoyed the hospitality of the ISI front, Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai!

And he was an interlocutor handpicked by the Govt to talk to the Hurriyat!
After reading the article from Deleep Padgoankar, I am convinced that either he is out of touch with reality (age-related affects, but that didn't stop him but writing this article) or something is seriously wrong with our intellectual elite, the "Äman-ki-Asha" brigade. He is trying to to persuade äll patriotic Indians" like him to ignore all burning issues & give UPA another shot at power because UPA is lesser of the 2 evils.

I genuinely hope & believe that we do not have to hear from him, ever again (especially, after this enlightening article).
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Secularism indeed has Christian roots.

The people didn't want the Church interfering in their lives, wanted to put the Church and Clergy in its place and remove their political influence.

Infact if it weren't for the oppressive Clergy, the Renaissance wouldn't have happened.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
After reading the article from Deleep Padgoankar, I am convinced that either he is out of touch with reality (age-related affects, but that didn't stop him but writing this article) or something is seriously wrong with our intellectual elite, the "Äman-ki-Asha" brigade. He is trying to to persuade äll patriotic Indians" like him to ignore all burning issues & give UPA another shot at power because UPA is lesser of the 2 evils.

I genuinely hope & believe that we do not have to hear from him, ever again (especially, after this enlightening article).

Can you please start a thread with the said article's topic ?
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
@Singh: Done.

Across the secular divide: Interesting article from Dileep Padgaokar

It's in Indian Affairs: Politics & Society section. You might want to start a poll there which options like who subscribes to his views: Completely, Partially & Not at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
250
@Singh: Done.

Across the secular divide: Interesting article from Dileep Padgaokar

It's in Indian Affairs: Politics & Society section. You might want to start a poll there which options like who subscribes to his views: Completely, Partially & Not at all.
That will be great.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
I have read your posts despite being a new member and my intention was to communicate the idea that there are cases where you must choose someone instead of "all politicians are bad and only army can save the country" line and it was not directed at you but i was talking it generally.
All politicians are bad and most generals today are politicians. I give you Colin Powell.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Secularism indeed has Christian roots.
Maybe that is why so many people today demand that secularism be equated with atheism? To rip out those roots?
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Secularism indeed has Christian roots.

The people didn't want the Church interfering in their lives, wanted to put the Church and Clergy in its place and remove their political influence.

Infact if it weren't for the oppressive Clergy, the Renaissance wouldn't have happened.
Without the Church interfering with the private lives of Christians, most Europeans would have still been tribals and unable to even build modern states with centralized bureaucracies and firm rule of law, let alone be at the forefront of scientific and economic progress.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Without the Church interfering with the private lives of Christians, most Europeans would have still been tribals and unable to even build modern states with centralized bureaucracies and firm rule of law, let alone be at the forefront of scientific and economic progress.
Similar arguments can be made for the positives of the British rule in India.

Nonetheless, People felt the Church stopped being a force of good and was therefore gradually done away with.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Nonetheless, People felt the Church stopped being a force of good and was therefore gradually done away with.
True, the Church gradually became a predatory state in its own right, and it was soon perceived as overbearing and corrupt, which led to the genesis of European secularism, i.e. the formal separation between temporal and spiritual authority. This has its roots in the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, rather than the Renaissance. I think it is no coincidence that so many of the great European scientists, thinkers, and inventors of the 17th and 18th centuries were Protestants from Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands, rather than Catholics. I think the Protestant Reformation was certainly responsible, at least in part, for the dominance of Western Europe over the rest of the world.

However, the other side of the argument is that the Church itself was a great civilizing force which put an end to European tribalism (with a few exceptions), and encouraged the emergence of modern state institutions and property rights. Consider that even staunchly religious countries like Spain, Portugal, and France, which remained Catholic and defied Protestantism, were still major world powers in their own right. The monarchs of the Catholic countries built some of the most powerful, modern, and innovative empires that the world had seen up to that point, including the first empires with true blue-water military capability (Portugal and Spain). What is most remarkable about this, is that these countries were little more than a collection of petty tribal principalities a few centuries ago, and under Islamic dominion at that. The point being, that the Church and its followers were not all utterly narrow-minded, and that both the Church and the Christian dissidents played a role in the emergence of the West as the dominant world civilization.
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
All politicians are bad and most generals today are politicians. I give you Colin Powell.
100% true in US context.

However, in Indian system, armed forces personnel hardly have any say, even in national security matters.

After retirement, depending upon their political affiliations, personal equations & converging business interests, a few of them could be handled a state or Union Territory, where they function as Governors (non-elected representative of Central govt. in federal states). Now, Governors'position in Indian context is totally different from that of US. To understand this, here's a wiki LINK.
 

afako

Hindufying India
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
3,718
Likes
21,139
Country flag
Maybe that is why so many people today demand that secularism be equated with atheism? To rip out those roots?
The article reveals that Atheism itself is ripping itself of its Christian Roots. :rofl:
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
The article reveals that Atheism itself is ripping itself of its Christian Roots. :rofl:
When will modern 'Hindus' rip themselves of their Christian roots? As it stands, they have hardly any genuine 'roots' at all.
 

parijataka

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
4,916
Likes
3,751
Country flag
When will modern 'Hindus' rip themselves of their Christian roots? As it stands, they have hardly any genuine 'roots' at all.
what roots do christians have dear - a middle eastern one or a liberal western outlook ? as for buddhism, sikhism, jainism - they cannot deny they are children of hinduism much as they might dislike that.

there is no system without flaw including hinduism, islam, christianity, buddhism, etc etc and we can sit here ad nauseum picking holes.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
what roots do christians have dear - a middle eastern one or a liberal western outlook ? as for buddhism, sikhism, jainism - they cannot deny they are children of hinduism much as they might dislike that.

there is no system without flaw including hinduism, islam, christianity, buddhism, etc etc and we can sit here ad nauseum picking holes.
I don't understand the reference to flaws within systems, as my post had nothing to with that. There are/were innumerable flaws with "Hinduism" which were the bane of Indian civilization, but that has already been discussed elsewhere. The point I am making is about the "roots" of Hinduism, or lack thereof.

When fanatics like those of Bajrang Dal ransack pubs and greeting card shops on Valentine's Day, what glorious ancient Hindu tradition are they following? Their morality is Victorian and their actions and views reminiscent of mullahs. They talk about defending some "great Hindu culture" which has never existed, except in their imagination. They have no roots.
 

parijataka

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
4,916
Likes
3,751
Country flag
I don't understand the reference to flaws within systems, as my post had nothing to with that. There are/were innumerable flaws with "Hinduism" which were the bane of Indian civilization, but that has already been discussed elsewhere. The point I am making is about the "roots" of Hinduism, or lack thereof.

When fanatics like those of Bajrang Dal ransack pubs and greeting card shops on Valentine's Day, what glorious ancient Hindu tradition are they following? Their morality is Victorian and their actions and views reminiscent of mullahs. They talk about defending some "great Hindu culture" which has never existed, except in their imagination. They have no roots.
well, who here is supporting bajrang dal and their ilk ?
 

afako

Hindufying India
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
3,718
Likes
21,139
Country flag
When will modern 'Hindus' rip themselves of their Christian roots?
Christians and Wannabe Neo Christians like Secularists and Atheists see the world in a linear framework.

There is nothing called Modern Hindu.

Hindu is a Hindu and has always viewed the world in a cyclic timeframe unlike Born to Sin and Die to Heaven BS concepts.

As it stands, they have hardly any genuine 'roots' at all.
Hindu roots are very clear and are the only original one left int the world.

We don't follow a yuppie version of a Desert Ideological Cult.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
There is nothing called Modern Hindu.
"Modern Hindu" is simply a term of convenience that I use to describe the pseudo-Dharmics that inhabit the modern Republic of India. Many of these psuedo-Dharmics, especially of the self-proclaimed "right-wing" variety, also engage in hilarious but nonetheless harmful intellectual masturbation about a "glorious Dharmic past" which has never existed, and they themselves have no understanding of what Indic civilization or "dharma" represented. You are right that there is no such thing as a "Modern Hindu" per se, because classical Indic civilization and the concept of "dharma" are dead. What we have now are people who nominally refer to themselves as "Hindu", but whose actual worldviews and beliefs are distinctly shaped by outside forces, especially those of the Islamic and Western civilizations. The views and beliefs of these "modern Hindus" would be largely alien and incomprehensible to an actual member of Dharmic civilization from, say, the 7th century C.E. Which is NOT to say that the the Dharmic individual from the 7th century was "superior" in any way to the pseudo-Dharmic "modern Hindu" of the 21st century, just that they are as fundamentally different from each other as Ahmadinejad is from Cyrus the Great, despite both of them being "Persians".


We don't follow a yuppie version of a Desert Ideological Cult.
Actually, yes, you do. At least, the "Hindutvadis" and like-minded "modern Hindus" do. Their philosophy and ideology is directly influenced and shaped by Islam, and indirectly by Christianity by way of Western colonialism.

An interesting example of pseudo-Dharmic modern "Hinduism" that I recently stumbled upon was a statement by Shastra Dharma Prachar Sabha (henceforth abbreviated SDPS) in the years shortly following India's Independence, regarding the Hindu Code Bills. SDPS was vociferously opposed to several aspects of the proposed reforms to Hindu marriage law, including the introduction of divorce, provision for intercaste marriage, and moves against bigamy (so much for "Hindu liberalism"). These views are startling in themselves for their backwardness and disregard for basic human dignity, especially those of women. But what was really interesting to me, was the justification that SDPS gave for their views. They said, and I quote, "The [Hindu Code] bills go against fundamental principles of the Hindu Shastras, God's spoken words, on which the society is based." (end quote).

Link: Religious Conscience, the State, and the Law: Historical Contexts and ... - Google Books

The reference to "God's spoken words" is a clearly Abrahamic and, in particular, Quranic, view of a religious-legal tradition. SDPS was legitimizing their views in much the same way that a Sunni Muslim qadi would. Such a view is alien to Dharmic tradition, since "dharma" as a religious-legal tradition was never historically legitimized in the same way that the Muslims (for example) legitimized the Sharia, i.e. by appealing directly to "God" and claiming that the Sharia was the infallible word of God himself. Ancient Dharmics did not have such a view of their religious-legal tradition, because they did not share the Abrahamic concept of "God" in the first place, and the idea of a body of law being infallible because it is "God's Spoken Word" would have made little sense to ancient Indians. The views of SDPS, the self-proclaimed "authority" on "dharma" and Dharmic religious-legal tradition, was using Abrahamic terms to describe and justify their views! This is hardly unique to the SDPS, and can be observed across pseudo-Dharmic modern "Hindus", who are unable to understand the civilization that they profess to belong to, because their 'roots' lie more in the Islamic and Western civilizations than they are willing or able to recognize.


@LurkerBaba should provide his views here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top