>Hmmm..... Did I say ALL Hindus and Mulsims are
Fundamentalist ... that damn English language !!
**** C'da don't you think that "Hindu Rationalist" or "Muslim Rationalist" is a Oxymoron. I would assume a Rationalist will be an aethist. So every faithwill be "somebody else's" faith for him.
**** The question and statement above was NOT mine. It clearly says that Krishnendu cannot imagine a Hindu or a Muslim to be rational. That only Aetheists could be rational. And if Hindus or Muslims cannot be rational, it means only one thing: That they accept all their scriptural or commonly understood or accepted tenets literally, regardless of whether they are rational or not; which is the definition of being a fundamentalist.
Yes indeed, that damned English language leaves a lot of desis discombobulated day in and day out, don't they?
>Is birth into a nominal Christian family not enough to be labeled one even if the person does not gothrough Baptism ?
*** I don't know. Is it? But I do know Christians do subscribe to a set of core principles and beliefs and it is required to be one.
Good point. So can you, as a human, go and ask them to prove that Prophet talked to God ?
**** If that had anything to do with the Ramsetu controversy, I might have. Question is does that? If it does not, why is it an issue in this discourse, other than to assert that since Muslims also irrational beliefs, they are equally GUILTY as Hinduttwawallas of interference with Ramsetu.
How does that fare in the index of rationality? Since it is unlikely to elicit an answer, I would let netters imagine that.
Or will they as rational, dig into that ?
*** I would think that for them to dig into that would be stupid., not rational.
Or for that matter demand withdrwal of Haj subsidy (which will benefit India of a couple of Crore Rs).
*** That is a matter of Indian misgovernment, not an innate fault of Islam. And it has everything to do with Muslim fears of persecution in a Hindu majority India and to get votes. And WHO exactly are the people who initiated the program ? Were these Indians or perhaps Pakistanis? And if these Indians who did that, are they good Indians or bad Indians? If they are bad Indians, then where are the good Indians to undo it? Did LK Advani and ABV's govt. did anything to change it? From what I know the NDA govt. actually EXPANDED the program. Rumor has it , the expanded Haj subsidy program was undertaken to benefit charter airline operator supporters of the BJP, the HIndutawallas.
What it proves is the dysfunctional condition of Indian governance. No other non-Islamic country offers or maintains such a program. If an India with an 80% majority of Hindus are incapable of undoing such a program, who are at fault, the 80% majority or the 13% minority?
Looks like you got a HUGE support. However, Karunanidhi is NOT a rationalist but an >OPPORTUNIST... just like Advani. He is exploiting the Dravidian sentiment where Ram is considered >as a villain and Ravan as a hero.
**** Heh-heh! Fortunately I do NOT need Karunanidhi's support. Yes Karunanidhi is an opportunist, just like LKA or the BJP too, the Hindu saviors. So is the Congress. Question is WHO is left to lead the country ? Any thoughts on that?
>I am relieved to know that you care about others of humankind ... never saw you criticizing the killing >of Biharis in Assam :-) Just a few days back you said you give a damn to what India is doing or >how India is improving. Are you changing your stance? And if you as a Human has right to meddle in >others Religious Belief, WHY would not Indersen or anyone else have that right?
**** Not giving a damn about how India is doing was in the CONTEXT of how Assam is doing. You stripped my comment of context , rendering it malicious to serve your particular need to score a point. That is what is truly malicious, disingenuous.
Bihari killings in Assam has been a result of acts of commission of Indian misgovernment in Assam. That is why I would not validate your and others' attempts to put the blame squarely on ULFA by joining you guys in condemning it. I know better. Similarly for many other such acts .
>And if you as a Human has right to meddle in others Religious Belief, WHY would not Indersen or >anyone else have that right?
**** Whose religious beliefs am I meddling in? If Krishnendu or Indiresan or whoever else want to remain buried in superstitions andf irrational beliefs it is their choice. Far be it for me than to interfere with that. But Indirasen was attempting to have it both ways: On the one hand singing praises of RATIONAL thinking, while trashing those Indians who were critical of IRRATIONAL Hindu beliefs. He can't have it both ways. Nor can you.
And worst of all, Indirasen the revered desi intellectual is clueless about the REAL issue in the controversy: Of the injection of irrational religious beliefs of Hindus in the affairs of state that affects not only Hindus but ALL.
That is the difference.I thought I explained it clearly earlier. And people who understand ordinary English got it right-away. But I like to help out. I know how hard it could be on some, reeling under the burdens of religious prejudices and irrational beliefs :-).
Why Indians? Why not ascribe it to Americans?
**** That is because no American has challenged that YET. Or implied it is something to abhor. The Americans I know and commiserate with are sophisticated enough to know not to inject their religious burdens on their governance.
I appreciate your arugment that Indersen should evaluate the impact of demolishing Ram Sethu ---
**** If that was so, all the rest that you have quarrelled about is meaningless . All there was to the issue was THAT---the wisdom of messing with Ramsetu. Indirasen, like yourself, are unable to deal with the irrational aspects of Hindu beliefs and get offended when pointed out. You all ought to DO something to rid Hinduism and its practice as it stands, of its superstitions and its irratiuonal dogmas and help take it to a higher plane. Instead, you are remaining a part of the problem, by beating around the biush, avoiding what really matters.
However, what I found disturbing (now and earlier too) is why you are always up in arms against >Hindus but have no rational dissection against other\ religions. As a Human you should, I guess ?
**** Indirasen wrote the following profound ( heh-heh) paragraph:One suspects that Indian rationalists have confined themselves to attacks on Hindu myths because Hindus are soft targets; others are not. If that is true, rationalists are cowards. A cowardly soldier is a danger to the army; he can lose battles. Cowardly intellectuals are even more dangerous; they can destroy an entire society.
What do you think? Am I the only offender here? Indirasen does not even know of my existence. Could it be that I have the intestinal fortitude to say it like it is, inviting the irrational believers' wrath?
Or is it my 'cowardice' that angers you so?Mind you now, none of this would have happened, had it not been for people like Indirasen AVOIDING the real issue and lashing out against those who hurts his Hindu sensitivities by baring its irrational side for all to see. That I would submit is NOT the problem of rational thinkers. It is Indirasen's problem It is your problem.
During the Babri masjid issue, I asked a BJP supporter why they are trying to disturb the peace. And >he asked me why people do not raise any question when Missionaries go around converting or when >Muslims destroy Hindu temples? I had no answer.
*** I am sorry to know that. Unfortunately it does not speak well of your own intellectual abilities and merely underscores how uneducated you are about democracy ,the rule of law and freedom of religion. For someone who waves democratic values as often as you do, it is a terrible commentary, even though only inadvertent.
At 1:05 PM -0700 9/20/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty wrote:
> Therefore, your attempt to paint ALL Hindus and moreimportantly ALL Muslims as irrational fundamentalists merely exposes your personal prejudices and misconceptions and does not refute my explanation of why it is uncouth to question others' faiths, as> Hmmm..... Did I say ALL Hindus and Mulsims are Fundamentalist ... that damn English language !! let us take an example of Muslim Rational. As rational, he will not believe in GOD and then, if he do not believe in GOD, he is not a Muslim ! By your famous twist, you are combining fundamentalism to rationalism. Two are separate animals. You can be a believer in God or your religious practices or Ram or Ram Sethu et al without being a FUNDAMENTALa nominally Hindu family is enough to be labeled one;Is birth into a nominal Christian family not enough to be labeled one even if the person does not go through Baptism ?faith that do not require fundamentalist submission to irrational beliefs. Good examples are Assamese Muslims, or many Indian Muslims or many Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims, or many Lebanese Muslims, or Turkish Muslims or Iraqi Muslims or Israeli Muslims or even most American Muslims and British Muslims.Good point. So can you, as a human, go and ask them to prove that Prophet talked to God ? Or will they as rational, dig into that ? Or for that matter demand withdrwal of Haj subsidy (which will benefit India of a couple of Crore Rs).Just ask Hindu Karunanidhi of DMK. He has staunchly defended his stance that Ram was a myth and refuses to withdraw his views asLooks like you got a HUGE support. However, Karunanidhi is NOT a rationalist but an OPPORTUNIST ... just like Advani. He is exploiting the Dravidian sentiment where Ram is considered as a villain and Ravan as a hero.traditions. But my first and most important identity is the human one. I know some Indians get thrown off by that, and one, in one of those Outlook India debates, even challenged that as being convenient , implying that I sprang that on him just to refute his arguments and that could not possibly believe that. And on that basis, that I am a human being, first and foremost; I do care about others of humankind,I am relieved to know that you care about others of humankind ... never saw you criticizing the killing ofBiharis in Assam :-) Just a few days back you said you give a damn to whatIndia is doing or how India is improving. Are you changing your stance? And if you as a Human has right to meddle in others Religious Belief, WHY would not Indersen or anyone else have that right?is the human one. I know some Indians get thrown off by that, and one, in one of those Outlook India debates, even challenged that as being convenientWhy Indians? Why not ascribe it to Americans? If Americans consider themself as Human, respecting Humans, why do they go around killing in Vietnam, Iraq et al.Why does it give you heartburn over my "meddling" in Ramsetu and for being critical of the irrational and self contradictory Hindu platitudes of Dr. Indiresan presented in the guise of a dispassionate scholarly discourse? Do you disagree with my arguments? If you do, which and why?I appreciate your arugment that Indersen should evaluate the impact of demolishing Ram Sethu or investigating further on Ram etc. Personally I believe there might be a king named Rama based on whom Valmiki compiled Ramayana but there are more fantasy then history in it. and if you notice the basic storyline of Ramayan is similar to Illiad. It may be based on same basic story with regional flavor. However, what I found disturbing (now and earlier too) is why you are always up in arms against Hindus but have no rational dissection against other religions. As a Human you should, I guess ? During the Babri masjid issue, I asked a BJP supporter why they are trying to disturb the peace. And he asked me why people do not raise any question when Missionaries go around converting or when Muslims destroy Hindu temples? I had no answer.
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
