--- Nasci Caldeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >U already have my answers, to most of what u r >asking. They may not look reasonable to you; but they >are my observations and suggestions. >
Nasci, I don't think you have provided clear answers to my questions. Based on your answers before and now I am still not sure you know whether you are merely opposed the Hindu extremists of today, who are clearly in the minority, or against Hinduism and Indian tradition, in general. In the past, I think you have expressed your disapproval of even petty things like the traditional garments that Indians wear. Please correct me if I am wrong. > >And what about the moderate and non fundamentalists >hindus who aren't at all vociferous and do not demand >that the extremists stop doing their evil in the name >of Hinduism. I have not heard u once saying anything. > There are plenty of moderate Hindus who are vociferously opposing the Hindu extremists, and a solid majority has soundly defeated them in the last election. The BJP or any of the members of the Sangh Parivar are not in power any more in India. Regarding your not hearing my saying anything in opposition to them, and to the harmful practices of Hinduism, you are completely wrong. Over the past 9 years, I have consistently voiced my objections, not only to the Hindu zealots and what they have tried to do, but to the following specific practices: 1. The Caste System and attempts to rationalize its imposition in the first place. 2. Introduction of "Vedic" astrology in Indian universities. 3. Frauds such as "Vedic" mathematics. 4. Superstitions such as astrology and vastushastra. 5. Quackery and exaggerations related to Ayurveda. 6.Pious Hindu miracle hysteria e. g. lactophilic Ganesh idols. 7. Deceptive godmen such as Satya Sai Baba. 8. Destruction of the Babri masjid in Ayodhya. 9. Revision of history, such as the rejection of any type of Aryan invasion, and the false depictions in the VCD issued by the Parrikar government. 10. Several bogus claims regarding the achievements of "Vedic" science. 11. The cowdung anti-microbial patent in the U.S. 12. The ban on cow slaughter. > >Of course! I often have spoken out on some Christian >practices in Goa and in Bombay, too, but these >practices do not affect non-catholics; so nothing for > u to worry about. > Can you tell me what they are? Do they adversely affect your fellow Catholics? If they do then we have to worry about them. There certainly are quite a few practices of Catholics and other sects of Christianity that are superstitious in nature, but more importantly, harmful to society. There also is a large contingent of fundamentalist Christians, especially in the U.S., whose ideology, influence and power have consequences for scientific progress, world peace and international understanding. > >Bringing God down to the level of a snake and cow; >Surely god must be lacking in intelligence or power in >hindu tradition?? These practices are blasphemy to >me; > Why? What is the definition of blasphemy according to you? Why is your disapproval of the Hindu God or his/her/its image of any concern to the rest of the society? Are these beliefs in and of themselves harmful to Hindus or non-Hindus? > > Bhudhism does not have blsphemy, as far as I know. > Buddhism does not believe in a personal God. Isn't that blasphemy? Do you approve of it? Your Pope does not. > >Same way Christians believe that when the Holy >Spirit overtakes a person he or she is spirited and >can be a saint, very close to god and god then uses >such persons to work miracles thru them, whether >canonised or not. > I submit to you that belief in miracles is pure superstition, and often harmful to society. One needs to speak out against it. > >But the human flesh and desires are weak and more >inclined to do evil. > This is another Christian dogma, unfounded in fact. The fact is most humans are good at heart, whether Christian or not. Only a small percentage of people have the inclination to commit crimes. > >One has the freedom to differ, and many do. This >should also be a 'freedom' in all religions. > I submit to you that there is no such freedom in traditional Christianity, and to a varying extent in other religions. > >Malaysia with a muslim majority is not a islamic state >and so they prosper. The moment it becomes an Islamic >Govt. then all hell brakes loose from the fanatics. > Why then are the Middle Eastern Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia prosperous? > >belief in miracles and or superstitions, does not pose >any public law and order problem. > Gullible Christians flocking in droves to witness a roadside statue weeping fake tears of blood does not pose a public law and order problem? How about a public display of the wounds of a stigmatic perpetrating pious fraud in a quiet residential neighborhood? Isn't an evangelist dispensing bogus miracle cures to his faithful followers in their time of need causing harm to the public? Cheers, Santosh
