Frankly, I don't think Dr. Pete was intending bigotry. However, I
think his slant and smug comments, while "tongue-in-check" and thus
"pluasubly deniable" are ridiculing a (to millions) sacred religious
practice. Implying they are worthless hokum -- based on the example of
one mixed-up white boy.
You're right. I can't imagine why Dr. Pete would ever imply that Mr. Pall's yagyas have not done him any good. Must be back on the acid again.
That builds a foundation for further "all in
fun" tongue-in-check" degrading comments about hindus and their
practices. Or any religion.
Like the slippery slope of judging a woman's veracity by education,
profession etc, there is a sippery slope of bigotry, IMO. Like the
woman's example Phd > executive > community leader > teacher > mom >
walmart worker > trailer park resident > topless dancer > prostitute
-- where do you draw the line of "veracity". You don't! Its a false
premise that there is such a gradation. Its a false model.
In the same way with a bigotry heirarchy: yagyas are ineffective and
silly < people who do yagyas are silly < people who do things
differently than us are strange < its the strange people who are
causing the problems < townies are ignorant rednecks < who are those
camel jockey's who moved next door < those towel heads setting fires
to those cars up town ought to be deported - if not shot < blacks
should be profiled < arabs should ot be allowed on airplanes <
mexicans are ruining america < jews control the media and have an
agenda < this is a chirstian nation < I don't want any blacks or arabs
living next door < lets deport all arabs < jews control all banks and
are causing the depression ....
I cant even remember Mr Pall's slurs. Not sure where to put them in on
the scale.
The above comparision is probably flawed. Objections can be made in
any number of superficial areas I am sure. But the theme of
stereotyping, starting at "innocent" tongue-in-check levels, provide
the (in)tolerance and foundatin for more advanced stereotypes and
bigotry. And like the woman's veracity scale, its a false model. Its
based on false associations of traits with a particular group.
But I digress. My main concern with Dr. Pete was that he was rudely,
IMO, making jokes about sacred ceremonies.
Well, I've gone back and reread the post, and I didn't see any reference to any ceremonies, sacred or otherwise.
> > Whats your take on christians taking communion, muslems praying
before
> > Mecca six times a day, Buddhists strivng to be compassionate? I have
> > seen fools do all of such. Does that make these practices foolish?
>
> The first two have nothing in common with the third. The first two are
> rituals, not tied to any particular set of actions, the third one *is*
> action.
I am not into such distinctions like you are. My point is everyone has
sacred things in their lives -- that many others do not "get". Like TM
2x. Or going to the domes. Step back a few feet and yagyas are not
more "silly" or "sacred" than that to most.
True enough.
Respect, tolerance and
maturity are reflected in appreciating that one does not know all,
that one does not understand all traditions. And thus a mindful
respect of others' traditions is warranted. To ridicule them is a
form of bigotry, a form of espressing superiority and identity
enhancement.
Perhaps, altho I just didn't see any ridicule here, just a humorous response, brought on by a silly post that Tom undoubtedly knew would evoke such responses. Hence the "don't call me, I'll call you" caveat at the end.
