On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:54 AM, va [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/3/08, Divya Sampath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are many grounds for my objections to the
multiple personal laws in India; apart from strong
personal convictions about the separation of religion
from state, they
On 3/3/08, Divya Sampath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are many grounds for my objections to the
multiple personal laws in India; apart from strong
personal convictions about the separation of religion
from state, they are discriminatory, particularly
against women.
Women are usually
On Monday 03 March 2008, Divya Sampath wrote:
[snip]
wanted to come back to the point about the absence of
a uniform civil code/ the existence of a bunch of
antiquated personal laws based on various religions.
I agree that a UCC is required, totally. What I am worried about is
who gets to
On Monday 03 Mar 2008 4:26:04 pm Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
What I am worried about is
who gets to decide what goes into it.
Ramchandra Guha's book India after Gandhi gives some interesting insights
into how the current code came onto being and the arguments made for and
against the current
On Sunday 02 Mar 2008 11:13:47 am Charles Haynes wrote:
But what about saying that only one Ramayana is correct and that other
Ramayanas are blasphemous and violently attacking people who
promulgate Ramayanas that offend you?
Other than me, nobody has actually said that only one Ramayana is
On Sunday 02 Mar 2008 11:05:46 am Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
Merely because Hinduism is not about religion. It is about dharma. It is
a dharma or code of conduct for a people. Their beliefs about God are
peripheral to the issue.
Really? So Hinduism begins and ends with Dharma, and other
--- ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 2:05:18 pm Divya Sampath
wrote:
There is some basis for the argument that the
legal
framework of the Republic of India is not entirely
secular - in the absence of a uniform civil code
for
people of all religions, for example.
On 3/1/08, ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But when the practise of her religion involves insulting my belief, and
saying
that my religion is wrong my nose suddenly gets in the way.
Nothing can stop anyone from protesting here. But protesting is not the same
as hitting back, although that
On Saturday 01 Mar 2008 1:56:04 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i have brought a can of kerosene in case you take
offence and want to commence a protest.
Kerosene?
What good is that without a train full of Hindu pilgrims? :D
shiv
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:07 PM, ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 01 Mar 2008 6:12:40 am Thaths wrote:
The story of the brutal murder of an evangelical preacher and his
young son does not leave me fuzzy in any way.
There is a fairly easy response to this and it is possible to fill
On Saturday 01 Mar 2008 9:52:46 am va wrote:
I for one dislike any political party speaking on behalf of my religious
beliefs mainly because as a religion Hinduism is not organised, has no
strict rules and our life karma rests entirely on an individual
(creature?). Losing that freedom is a
You mean you have a right to not be insulted by anyone? I
No. Can't imagine how you thought that from what i wrote.
Er, also you mentioned your nose being in the way if someone insulted your
religion. In the quote Udhay cited, Your right to swing your fist stops
where my face begins, the
On Saturday 01 March 2008, ss wrote:
[snip]
One more religion that is considered dharmic and non adversarial (towards
Hindus) and an offshoot of Hinduism is the Sikh religion. The Sikh
religion started off as a mild-mannered variant that took dharma from
Hinduism and a monotheistic theme.
On 3/1/08, ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there may well be greater forces at work. If you look at the history of
For me, politics and religion dont mix...the former is about control,
greed for power and money whilst the latter (specifically Upanishad
texts and the like) is about *not*
On 3/2/08, ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean that if I feel insulted I will protest and say that I have been
insulted.
That seems to be the norm for India and I am merely continuing a tradition.
Nothing wrong with that is there? What with all this talk of swinging fists
and noses, a
On Sunday 02 March 2008, divya manian wrote:
[snip]
As you said, I think Hinduism is everything and nothing. I think you
can be an atheist and still be a Hindu. And I really like the part of
This is what I meant by the term being devoid of value. I consider there
to be great benefit in
On Sunday 02 Mar 2008 12:48:53 am va wrote:
Well, I like to believe it survived because amongst all the the
different philosophies, dualism, non-dualism theories and what not it
has non-violence as a core part of the ideology.
The survival of anything good depends on the existence of people
On Sunday 02 Mar 2008 12:59:33 am divya manian wrote:
And I thought Indians worshipped Gandhi
Gandhi was a very intelligent man. He utilized violence by not allowing it to
occur. He was politically big enough to build up a great following among
Indians. He utilized that following by holding
On Saturday 01 Mar 2008 10:44:16 pm Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
I've often wondered: can a religion be monotheistic, anti-idolatory,
anti-superstition (at least in theory if not in general practice) and
caste-blind and still be considered Hinduism?
Yes.
Merely because Hinduism is not about
On Sunday 02 March 2008, ss wrote:
Merely because Hinduism is not about religion. It is about dharma. It is a
dharma or code of conduct for a people. Their beliefs about God are
peripheral to the issue.
Really? So Hinduism begins and ends with Dharma, and other concepts like Yog,
Moksh and
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:27 PM, ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is in saying that only one God is correct and that other Gods are
wrong. This is the fundamental basis of conversion and this is what hurts
Hindu sentiment.
But what about saying that only one Ramayana is correct and
--- ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Republic of India is a secular democracy. In a
secular country the
government is secular and does not allow religion
into affairs of state (at
least nominally)
There is some basis for the argument that the legal
framework of the Republic of India is
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 2:05:18 pm Divya Sampath wrote:
There is some basis for the argument that the legal
framework of the Republic of India is not entirely
secular - in the absence of a uniform civil code for
people of all religions, for example.
Absolutely!! And I am certain you know that
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 11:05:43 am The smaller the better wrote:
Off topic post. Hi Anjana. Been a long long time since we met. I recall those
evenings I used to spend talking with your dad about the differences between
DOS 3 and 1dirplus! and the PCTools shell
If you bump into my classmate -
ss wrote: [ on 05:37 PM 2/29/2008 ]
It is legal and constitutional in India for evangelists and Muslims to demand
a constant increase in the numbers of Christians and Muslims by conversion.
I have never been able to understand one very basic thing about the
objection to conversions. They all
Udhay Shankar N wrote:
If there are forcible conversions, I am still unable to see the
problem - can't the individual repudiate the conversion process, or
convert back to the original religion if unsatisfied?
They can switch back and forth. Certainly means lots of paperwork, new
certificates
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 5:49:37 pm Udhay Shankar N wrote:
So the person has made a choice. What, then, is the problem with that?
The problem is in saying that only one God is correct and that other Gods are
wrong. This is the fundamental basis of conversion and this is what hurts
Hindu
ss wrote: [ on 06:27 PM 2/29/2008 ]
It is not the convert's choice, but the implication that another's belief is
wrong that hurts. Expressing the sentiment should not be a problem, but often
leads to argument and accusation of extremism.
You may have a right to swing your fist, but it ends
The basic argument revolves around the clause that allows the complete
freedom to practise any religion in India. This is the one clause that is
stated as actually weighted against Hindus and I believe the logic of the
I don't agree with this logic, although I can see why a lot of people do.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 3:07 PM, ss wrote:
The Hindu religion(?) does not call for any such compulsion and under the
circumstances the free practice of all religions in India necessarily means
poaching on Hindus as potential converts and a gradual decrease in the number
of Hindus.
This
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 7:14:02 pm Badri Natarajan wrote:
it's not the Constitution's fault that Hinduism is not an
evangelical religion or that Christianity is.
That does not make it correct or fair
It is legal and constitutional in India for evangelists and Muslims to
demand
a constant
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 6:53:56 pm Udhay Shankar N wrote:
You may have a right to swing your fist, but it ends where my nose begins.
Exactly why do you need to express the sentiment to me, if I am a
convert? Or to instigate or participate in riots or worse in the name
of such expression?Taking
ashok _ [29/02/08 17:42 +0300]:
Arent you contradicting yourself rather severely here. On the one hand you
claim one can never escape the hinduness of being born in India... and now
you are talking about conversions like its a one-way street ?
Your autorickshaw driver's idea isn't
ss wrote: [ on 07:22 PM 2/29/2008 ]
Exactly why do you need to express the sentiment to me, if I am a
convert? Or to instigate or participate in riots or worse in the name
of such expression?Taking things personally are we?
Do you think I am personally expressing my sentiment to you? Do you
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:57 AM, ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 5:49:37 pm Udhay Shankar N wrote:
So the person has made a choice. What, then, is the problem with that?
The problem is in saying that only one God is correct and that other Gods are
wrong. This is the
On 2/29/08, Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For that matter, I've heard that the Buddha is supposedly the ninth
avatar of Vishnu, so what's the problem with converting to Buddhism?
there is even a realm of pseudo research which claims that jesus died
in srinagar, where he came to learn
On 2/29/08, Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought much of the objection was to converting to Buddhism?
Buddhism does not say that only one god is correct and that other gods
are wrong.
As far as I know, Hindus consider Jainism and Buddhism as offshoots of
Hinduism and do not
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:31 PM, divya manian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/29/08, Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought much of the objection was to converting to Buddhism?
Buddhism does not say that only one god is correct and that other gods
are wrong.
As far as I
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 8:12:04 pm ashok _ wrote:
I reckoned he was gaming the system very well, many people seem to do this
for economic benefit...I cannot see what is wrong in the whole transaction
- its a win-win
situation for everyone (except you
In fact the greatest opposition to what I
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:15 PM, ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact the greatest opposition to what I say come from Hindus. A lot of
Christians I know are perfectly comfortable Indians. They don;t visit temples
to prove that. They are Hindu in every sense of the word and also see how
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 10:53:05 pm Udhay Shankar N wrote:
I am not religious, and view ALL organised religion
with varying degrees of amusement. And occasionally contempt.
This is fact is powerful support for my comments, even if you thought my
comments were trolling.
Rewording my views as
On Saturday 01 Mar 2008 6:12:40 am Thaths wrote:
The story of the brutal murder of an evangelical preacher and his
young son does not leave me fuzzy in any way.
Thaths - let us please not get into this. This is a dead end because I have
been through it.
There is a fairly easy response to
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:07 PM, ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 01 Mar 2008 6:12:40 am Thaths wrote:
The story of the brutal murder of an evangelical preacher and his
young son does not leave me fuzzy in any way.
Thaths - let us please not get into this. This is a dead end
On Saturday 01 Mar 2008 12:29:27 am Charles Haynes wrote:
I thought much of the objection was to converting to Buddhism?
Buddhism does not say that only one god is correct and that other gods
are wrong.
For that matter, I've heard that the Buddha is supposedly the ninth
avatar of Vishnu, so
On Saturday 01 Mar 2008 6:57:48 am Charles Haynes wrote:
The claim that B is true is not refuted by saying that it's true for A
as well. Violence begets violence. But there is also danger to any
innocent party trying to intervene.
Absolutely, and I was aware of this when I wrote that. But let
OK, I'll try once more, and then give up to do other things with my time:
ss wrote: [ on 06:32 AM 3/1/2008 ]
The Indian constitution accepts religion, and accepts conversions (by
implication) as part of religion. The constitution does not specifically
prohibit protests for or against any
On Saturday 01 Mar 2008 9:16:06 am Udhay Shankar N wrote:
This ignores what I have attempted to point out multiple times
before. Your right to protest is valid only as long as it does not
trample on any other right of any other person, such as the right to
freely practise her religion. Your
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:23 AM, ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But when the practise of her religion involves insulting my belief, and
saying
that my religion is wrong my nose suddenly gets in the way.
But by 'insulting' a belief has a law been transgressed? Perhaps. Our
Constitution,
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Udhay Shankar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles Haynes wrote, [on 2/28/2008 5:40 AM]:
You mean this?
http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/28/stories/2008022859311200.htm
The part of the article you left out makes it clear it is politics as
usual with the
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Udhay Shankar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Activists of the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad allegedly vandalised
the Delhi University's History department on Monday protesting against the
inclusion of a collection of essays by A.K. Ramanujan — Three Hundred
Ramayana story and set in a post-apocalyptic humans vs. demons world
(obviously), the Deepak Chopra-developed comic franchise would seem to
lend itself well to the genre without resorting to Western swords and
sorcery shenanigans.
What was the response to the comics? Is it related to the
Sigh:
Badri Natarajan wrote:
Ramayana story and set in a post-apocalyptic humans vs. demons world
was cool). The Ashok Banker novels retelling the Ramayana (Prince of
Ayodhya, etc) are actually quite readable - better than the comics
(although I've only read the first one).
Might do well to
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Madhu M. Kurup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Badri Natarajan wrote:
Ramayana story and set in a post-apocalyptic humans vs. demons world
was cool). The Ashok Banker novels retelling the Ramayana (Prince of
Ayodhya, etc) are actually quite readable - better
Charles Haynes wrote: [ on 12:15 AM 2/29/2008 ]
So why is the official reaction to violent intimidation by right wing
looney thugs one of appeasement? Is not what they did both clearly
illegal and offensive to anyone who believes in a free society? Why is
there not outraged reaction? What is it
Badri Natarajan [28/02/08 19:33 -]:
was cool). The Ashok Banker novels retelling the Ramayana (Prince of
Ayodhya, etc) are actually quite readable - better than the comics
They're cheap clones of the usual sword and sorcery stuff. Not that I liked
the genre all that much but Terry Brooks
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 12:15:31 am Charles Haynes wrote:
So why is the official reaction to violent intimidation by right wing
looney thugs one of appeasement? Is not what they did both clearly
illegal and offensive to anyone who believes in a free society? Why is
there not outraged reaction?
Casey O'Donnell wrote: [ on 12:43 AM 2/29/2008 ]
What was the response to the comics?
I have read the first several issues of 3 of their series [1]:
_Devi_, _Sadhu_, and the _Ramayan_ one -- all based, in some way or
another, on tropes from Indian mythology.
_Devi_, in particular, is
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:39 PM, ss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 12:15:31 am Charles Haynes wrote:
So why is the official reaction to violent intimidation by right wing
looney thugs one of appeasement? Is not what they did both clearly
illegal and offensive to anyone
On 2/29/08, Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't care how offensive the book is, how can
violence, assault, and destruction of property be legitimate ways to
show your displeasure? Is book burning ever appropriate in a nominally
free, pluralistic, secular democracy?
ever heard
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 7:24:03 am Charles Haynes wrote:
Hm. I'm probably guilty of either cultural insensitivity, or at least
ignorance, but as a free speech absolutist I'm not sure that (1) is
actually an issue. I don't care how offensive the book is, how can
violence, assault, and destruction
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 7:24:03 am Charles Haynes wrote:
Is book burning ever appropriate in a nominally
free, pluralistic, secular democracy
A little comment on the above quote:
There is a commonly seen misrepresentation of reality here
The Republic of India is a secular democracy. In a
Secular refers to absence of religion.
While defined in such a manner (separate from religion) it is not possible to
govern a nation whose citizens' every action is steeped in religion, in true
secularity. Thus secularism has taken on its pluralistic form in India.
,
the lack of these things treads upon the very intangibles that are held most
dearly - beliefs.
SIG.
- Original Message
From: ss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 9:12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [silk] Write a book, go to jail?
On Friday 29 Feb 2008 7:24
I hadn't realized just how serious a crime being a writer was. From The Hindu:
Baseless charges: PMO
New Delhi: The Prime Minister's Office has denied as baseless charges
regarding Dr. Singh's
daughter Upinder Tankha having 'written or edited' a book on the Ramayana.
She has written no
Charles Haynes wrote, [on 2/28/2008 5:40 AM]:
I hadn't realized just how serious a crime being a writer was. From The Hindu:
Baseless charges: PMO
New Delhi: The Prime Minister's Office has denied as baseless charges
regarding Dr. Singh's
daughter Upinder Tankha having 'written or edited'
65 matches
Mail list logo
