On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:00 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > t 2007-05-19 22:40:55 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > My only disagreement with him is his statement "even though I know > > it's not true". It is unfortunately at least partially true. > > Er, so you think the article sucks because it gives this impression, but > you also think the impression is true?
My words relate to your statement which I quote below in its entirety >> Reading Nussbaum's book, one gets the impression that most Hindus in >> India are fanatical. >Frankly, it's sometimes hard to escape that impression -- even though I >know it's not true -- without ever having heard of Nussbaum's book. The >"vocal minority" seems to enjoy a frightening amount of support from >"ordinary people". Hindus are more "fanatical" than people will acknowledge. Having said that being Hindu could be termed as being "fanatical" in many ways. For example: 1)Hindus worship stones, snakes, mythical beasts with elephant heads and a human torso with many arms, monkey Gods who are picturized ripping their own chests open to show another blue colored human God in the middle of the gore, a many armed Goddess who is worshipped for her ability to kill what Hindus term "evil", and they certainly don't term any of the above practices as "evil". 2)Hindus build and worship weird temples that have the most graphic pornographic imagery, apart from worshipping a phallic symbol set in a vagina representing one of the most powerful Gods in the Hindu pantheon - Shiva. From the viewpoint of the Bible, this is nothing less than devil worship. 3)Hindu worship involves the ceremonies in which people cover themselves with ash and other colored powder, take out huge processions with images of their violent half animal Gods while making the loudest possible noise in the form of chants, drums and "music" from the most unearthly instruments - made from sea-shells and elephant tusks, and heaven help anyone who objects. How much more difference could there be between Hindu practices and what one sees in civilized, law abiding societies? It seems quite clear that by the standards of behavior seen as "normal and civilized" in "modern society" Hindus certainly are a fanatical people whose behavior closely resembles Biblical or Quranic descriptions of evil, devil worshippers or people who are yet to be saved, or people who cannot be saved in their current state. So if "fanatical" is synonymous with Hindus, and if fanatical is a derogatory term, there has to be a built in bias against being Hindu. Show me people who will not characterize the normal Hindu behavior I have described above as being fanatical? shiv
