http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

This is a digression, but an interesting one.

But how do you decide what is good for the society? Where does the principles come from? Everybody differ in principle don’t they?

Where does this principles come from? How do you know that killing innocents is wrong? What is the logic behind it?

Are you asking me how a democracy (in those European countries that are being discussed) functions and how laws are made, or how each person decides what’s best for the society? One rule could be “do unto others what you want them to do unto you” but I’d guess that each person has their own idea as to what’s best for them and what’s best for the society based on their experience, common sense, beliefs etc. If you are asking some kind of leading question, maybe you should simply state the answer.

Regarding Hinduism, I think you mis-read my post. I didn’t say that there is no concept of god in Hinduism. I said, there’s nothing in Hinduism that forces me to accept the concept of god before I can call myself a Hindu. Very different. If today, I believe there’s no god, that’s fine with Hinduism. If tomorrow, I discover evidence of god and start believing in god, that’s fine with Hinduism too. Nothing is forced – it’s a personal journey of self-discovery. Again, I’m speaking from my experience growing up and what I imbibed – I do not claim to have read any theological books. Maybe someone who is more well-versed in Hindu theology can answer this for you.

Should we not then try to help the poor because it is He who has caused poverty?

Not sure what logic you’re using here. You help the gays and lesbians by giving them basic human rights, not by persecuting them, not by hating them. Similarly, you help the poor by doing what you can to help them and not hating them – sometimes it could be by giving them fish directly, other times it could be to teach them how to fish.

I did not know that Engineer condemned book burning during the Satanic Verses debate. Thanks for the info.

Nor do I know enough about Shivaji to become certain whether Shivaji should be called a rebel or a terrorist.

We never say they killed the Jewry because they were Christians.

Agreed. That is because Christ did not preach such a thing.

Abhilash

Thanks for the input. I am not an expert on Maratha history. So I can not offer anything but thanks.

considering the pros and cons based on the current needs of the society

But how do you decide what is good for the society? Where does the principles come from? Everybody differ in principle don’t they?

Where does this principles come from? How do you know that killing innocents is wrong? What is the logic behind it?

Because based on my limited knowledge, there is nothing in Hinduism that forces me to believe in the concept of god.

I have read a bit of Hinduism. Not very much, really, but I do know a bit, being from the land of Ramakrishna (I love that guy!) and Vivekanda(I’m not very fond of him).

In Hinduism, I have not come across a single idea that rejects God or gods. In fact the word `rejection’ is conspicuously absent in Samskrit, as Vivekanda noted.

Gita is emphatic in it’s claim about One God, but it accepts other demigods.

If you are an Atheist, you are closer to Buddhism. So far all Hindu scriptures I have read accept God (or gods).

The very god/allah you pray to also made those gays and lesbians.

Should we not then try to help the poor because it is He who has caused poverty?

He has given all of us weaknesses to overcome. We must try to overcome them.

Abraham Eraly’s “The Mughal Throne” is a prescribed text in several universities. Shivaji’s account in this would be highly unpalatable to hindutva brigade. Similarly, Philip Mason is also readily available in India.

Their portrayal of Maratha state is of a state sustained essentially by loot and plunder. Shivaji, himself had no qualms in ordering plunder of hindu population outside his dominion. However, inside his own dominion he worked hard to provide a just rule. Second thing that sets him apart from other rulers of his times is his religious tolerance and high regards for the dignity of women even during times of war.

Manas Asghar Ali Engineer did condemned the banning of Satanic Verses and the book is surely to target the ‘Prophet’ and hurts. You may ask Dr Engineer what he feels. He is stating that there is right to speak but he has not been quoted what is the book about. Mere claim of having different plain (does this means abything other than Muslim/Islam) will not make the book a sweet read.Nobody, i mean any muslim appreaciated MF Husains paintings. You must have realised the bad side effects of painting, thats why man made images are restricted and not liked by Muslims. A camera (natural image) is permitted and is norm.

abhilash shastry is fairly healthy in his thoughts,

“Since when Shivaji became a Hindu god?

Except in Maharashtra, nowhere is he considered a ‘god’. He was a warlord who managed to get political legitimacy in a time when independent hindu king was a rarity. He started his life as a bandit, but by the end of his life was able to provide a much more humane rule than many of the legitimate kings of his times.”

Asim Qidwai too is fairly expressive. We would do well if we can buy peace by detaching the thorns in our flesh. “For example in some European countries, holocaust denial is a criminal offence, isnt this infrigment of free speech? No its not as it is trying to protect people to hurt sentiments of others. Similarly writers and artists should be reined”. What most of the commentators forgot is that there is not right for a Masjid or Temple (Hindu) in Europe and legislations like ‘not much population’ is sighted. This happens in India too, to the extent that people are told to have less just because you have few. Either you should apply same to Saudi Arabia where non-muslim are very few or allow proportionate place of worship. you cant ask Muslims to have less as they have few, which is frequent.

Araranga feels that the excuse of being unable to do something against TN is lame. It merely shows what we are willing to do, what we want to condone or even promote.

The history of Islam should not be seen through the apologist mindset of Europe who killed the happless Jews. We never say they killed the Jewry because they were Christians. How can we call the Islamic history to be so either in Armenia, Palestine, Iran or anyewhere else. If Russian did change the names, scripts and languages banning Msoques and allowing churches in the name of culture, the revival of mosques and local langauges in free and independent countries of Central Asia is seen with suspicion. So is not the case with the smaller states of erstwhile USSR because those coutries are christians. Why to that far, Croatia and Slovenia did not have any problems of birth where Germany and France were behind them. The people who went to help the hapless Bosnians are being forced and deported and we know what happened in Bosnia in the last decade of the so called enlightened 20th century. In any analysis of Shia-Sunni, hardlin-moderate Muslims, the common denominator which is not lost sight of is that all are Muslims. I have the examples of so called moderate muslims in Gujrat circa 2002 and Palestine too. What crusaders did cannot simply be detached from christian history. you can not blame any bloodshed during these conflicts on Islama and what is being done in the name of Democracy has been realised by the sufferers, whereas we sitting here far away feel what is being fed to us in our living rooms. It is fashionabe to be hunting with the hounds, but very difficult to be with the hunted. The bottomline is that you cannot blame all the wrongs on Islam because it is Islam.There was nothing religious as we tell in Kashmir or Russian talk in Chechnya. Dont be blind.

1. Ban based on open debate? That sounds very interesting.

A decision taken by discussing the issue, considering the pros and cons based on the current needs of the society, that can be modified if needed. I’d say that’s much more practical and interesting than making rules based on a book dictated by god. That’s how secular democracies work. I also pointed out that many scholars are against this ban.

Moreover, you should know that most European countries do not offer what you call `Gay Rights’. Rome will be a good example.

Yup. I know. There’s work to be done everywhere.

It is funny to see some people when hawking against Islam claiming to be Atheist, and then elsewhere calling themselves Hindu.

I haven’t studied any vedas or such, but I’ll take a stab. Because based on my limited knowledge, there is nothing in Hinduism that forces me to believe in the concept of god. So, for me, being a Hindu and being an atheist is perfectly compatible.

I have seem some other people criticize Islam for not accepting gays as normal. They, in their private conversations, jokingly call their friends gay. Which means they do not approve of gay relationship.

If I were you, I’d call them on their hypocrisy. Basic human rights are basic human rights, above all religions and beliefs. The very god/allah you pray to also made those gays and lesbians.

I didn’t read them, so I can’t really comment on them. But if there are books critical of Shivaji, what made this one so special?

Amit

1. Ban based on open debate? That sounds very interesting.
2. I agree with certain aspects of some people does not mean I agree with them in all matters.
Moreover, you should know that most European countries do not offer what you call `Gay Rights’. Rome will be a good example.

This is not directed at anyone in particular:
———-
It is funny to see some people when hawking against Islam claiming to be Atheist, and then elsewhere calling themselves Hindu.

I have seem some other people criticize Islam for not accepting gays as normal. They, in their private conversations, jokingly call their friends gay. Which means they do not approve of gay relationship.