On Sunday 18 Apr 2010 8:22:11 pm Thaths wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:37 AM, ss <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hindus are allowed to kill both believers and unbelievers. > > Couldn't that be said about all religions? Muslims killing muslims in > the Iran-Iraq war, Christians killing (in some theaters of war) > christians in the WWI and WWII, etc? The reasons people kill each > other varies. Some times it is land, some times it is resources and > some times it is religion. To derive an axiom that religious killing > does not happen or is not noteworthy seems unjustified to me.
What religions dictate and what followers of religions do are two different things. The act of attributing a religious motivation to a societal event or societal situation is a political act. It seeks to highlight one religious motivation over another. For example social inequity and social discrimination was made official by Hindus though a millennia old process. The misnamed "caste" system was attributed to Hinduism as if it was some imperfeect religion imposing an imperfect social system. The perfect religions had eliminated this imperfect system bnecause their holy books said so. But a change of religion did not eliminate the caste system either among Christians or Muslims. Does that mean that a Hindu god of caste is more powerful than a Christian or Islamic god of equality? God is a strawman here. Claiming that "my God" allows this or does not allow that is pure bullshit. GIGO. Bringing religion in is a political act. The same holds true for people kiling people. How often do you read the assertion that Muslims do not kill Muslims? But that is rubbish. Muslims kill more Muslims in the name of Islam than Muslims being killed by non Muslims. Doesn't that mean that Allah is an utter failure? No. because Allah/God is a strawman here. It is a politically motivated act to deliberately claim that Muslims don't kill Muslims and highlight the killing of Muslims by non Muslims while ignoring the killing of Muslims by Muslims. Perhaps I have managed to explain my response to the following messages on Silk > On Sunday 18 Apr 2010 6:22:52 pm Biju Chacko wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > At 2010-04-17 11:55:25 +0530, [email protected] wrote: > > >> Some religions (though not Hinduism) have no place for those who do > > >> not believe; they are labelled "pagan" or "heathen" or "unbelievers" > > >> and can be persecuted and killed... > > > > > > Yeah. No persecution and killing of unbelievers when it comes to > > > Hinduism. Nothing to see here, move right along. > > > > Um ... Gujarat '02, Delhi '84, Kandhamal '08? shiv
