Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Crusade

Anna University and a (very) faulty operating system kept me away from my blog for a long time. The exams are over but the computer is still down so here I am posting from a net cafe!

Just read a very interesting article by Nicholas D Kristof of The New York Times on the Catholic church's crusade against condoms. You can read it here (you need to register though)

(from the article) The Vatican has horribly undercut the war against AIDS in two ways. First, it has tried to prevent Catholic clinics, charities and churches from giving out condoms or encouraging their use. Second, it argues loudly that condoms don't protect against H.I.V., thus discouraging their use. ( for example In El Salvador, the church helped push through a law requiring condom packages to carry a warning label that they do not protect against AIDS)

Its interesting to see that an institution that works in the name of god just stands by as millions die around the world. It is as simple as that. Yes, the church has done more service than any other instituion since the creation of man but cant it see that a set of principles that leads to millions of deaths has to be flawed?

66 Comments:

Anonymous Hari said...

I wanna put this mildly......Stupidity!!!!....turns out there are hardliners and stupid people everywhere...but muslims and also Hindus in India take most flak for that

10:38 AM  
Blogger AC said...

What bugs me most of all is that most people preaching regressive teachings like this are very very old, and totally out of touch with the pulse of the common people. In their stupidity and rigid conservatism, they're just alienating the church from sensible people. Yes, the Church's popularity has grown in Latin America, but it has dropped drastically in Europe, and these old fogies hav only themselves to blame. They hav ceased to be relevant to the times we live in... And they miss the one true truth - God is an athiest!

8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AC, the church is becoming an important factor in the US too... teaching evolution is prohibited...so the dangerous trend can't be ignored as covering the masses of the third world countries ...it is an organization with its tentacles spread far and wide

8:46 PM  
Blogger maraudingbee said...

i resent the comparison of the church to fundamentalist in india and pakistan.....unlike the hindu and muslim hardliners they do not kill on account of religion. i may be going off on a tangent but all the misfortune in the world cannot be attributed to the church. the church has increased literacy, reduced poverty, stifled the spread of diseases and now they are facing brickbats for taking bold steps. this particular step is retrograde (the article's veracity is still under question.)but it pales in comparison to all the benfits that the church has brought to the common man. very much unlike muslim and hindu oragnisation which proclaim to do a lot of good but double up as money laundering operators.

12:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how can u say that the church has been responsible for the death of millions of people.....AIDS did not start at the church.ok they did not take active measures to curb the rise of the disease but that is not the responsibilty of the church alone, the initiative must be taken by all governments and NGOs. its easy to ascribe motives to all the actions of the church. i'm sure u would have taken exception if they had supported gay marriages because there is a direct link between homosexuality and AIDS.

India has a substantial AIDS infected population.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1105489.cms

is it the fault of the church that number of aids patients has continued to increase in this country? if i follow your logic i would like to blame the government of india especially the ousted BJP for concentrating more on the reconstruction of the RAM temple than on the impending disaster.

AC:what has age got to do with anything. the clergy has always been run by the elderly and has always been effecient in its operation. u dont have a problem when old coots run governments(Vajpayee,castro etc.etc) greenspan has been the head of the Fed reserve for several years. have his policies been out of touch with the pulse of the common people.

ultimately, its the net result that matters and the church continues to be the most beneficial institution in the world.


an irate freebutcomesataprice

2:57 AM  
Blogger P said...

@ Freebutcomesataprice:

The church happens to be one THE most powerful voice in many countries and people are going to believe what they say. As I clearly mentioned in my post, they have done a lot but they have to change their stand on this.

As for the rise of AIDS cases in this country it is because of a variety of factors and obviously the church doesnt play a role here. But yes, it would help if the govrenment would come out of this cocoon of denial.

6:31 AM  
Blogger P said...

@maraudingbee: yeah, the authenticity of the article might be in doubt but the fact is that the Church's views on abortion and AIDS are well documented.

6:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maraudingbee: Let's not get into killing in the name of religion....the crusades are well known....I'm not trying to justify the hardliners ....whichever religion....but nopes the church has a greater history of violence than all other organizations

8:47 AM  
Blogger Srikar said...

yes prashanth, that's a big question. The point is we are ready to accept religion even in present times. I'm nt saying it's wrong. what I'm saying is that it's we who should decide when to put a stop to it. When we see that all that a religion is doing is to hinder our growth we should just breakfree. as simple as that....

6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

true Srikar. Religious beliefs are nothing but a way of looking at god. but its easier this way.

9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

totally agree with you about the crusades

9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

suggest u cow lovers take on muslims instead.....its just that hindus are inherently coward(ly) who cant take on muslims who have committed so many atrocities against them.
crusades yes....but that was so long ago. christianity and christians have evolved unlike muslims and hindus who are still stuck in the nascent stages of cognitive development... this is the only plausible explanation for Godhra, Ayodhya, Kargil........

8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope you get your facts before posting. You seem to be nothing more than a stupid troll. Kargil was a fight between two nations and not between two religions.

As for the evolution of christianity, its obvious that the two sets of people that are grasping the most for their identity are Muslims and Christians. why else would you have clergy telling people to go and blow themselves up. As for christians, look at the american elections.

8:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Evolved...hah u think so and so they're opposed to the theory of Evolution!!!!!!!!!

9:19 AM  
Blogger P said...

I think the entire post was taken out of contest. I was just saying that the Church should look into the issue seriously thats it.

but this is fun!

9:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the two sets of people that are grasping the most for their identity are Muslims and Christians???wtf....support your statements with facts.....hindus believe in the theory of evolution. they also believe that ganesha was a half man half elephant. darwin sure missed that piece in the evolution puzzle.ROFLTIME!!!


american elections????i'm fairly sure rat worshipper here dreams of living in the us someday and working for an american company.or is he/she already working for one.

10:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our clergy wants us to blow up.......your clergy want u to just blow

1:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@anon who posted before me:i just hope u are a mossie, coz u ain't talking for me.

prashanth i suggest the subject of ayodhya or horny priests(hindu/christian/muslim) for your nxt post.that'll send the statcounter spinning.

freebutcomesataprice

7:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah and christians believe that Christ walked on water. what a load of shit.

8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YOU ARE A BASTARD. SHUT THE FUCK UP. GO RITE ABOUT UR RELIGION.

3:28 AM  
Blogger P said...

@ anon : geez man. cool down.

@ Freebutcomesataprice: will do.

Right now I feel like writing about the blasted communists in our country. screw them!

3:56 AM  
Blogger Kirthi said...

OMG prashanth! These anon dudes have totally hijacked your blog! Deja vu...reminds me of the posts on orkut discussing religion. Poor blokes, they first start with some cogent arguments and then end up tearing each other's hair( by now they must be bald).

4:39 AM  
Blogger Sharad said...

Well Prash, looks like its time for a new post :P what do you say ??

Personally I think it's been taken out of context as well, but what the hell man - Let it Be !

10:53 AM  
Blogger P said...

kirthi, those were amazing! The ones on the India community especially.

Sharad: you kidding!? Not yet :)

2:48 AM  
Blogger CoNfUsEd said...

OMG! some serious arguments here..

One can blame the common man for using religion as a fall back cos at the end of the day, its reassuring to know that there is some force that he thinks is omnipresent and omnipotent.. Life can't be so bad afterall..

Every religion in this world was made with a perfect motive, a way to make this world a better place to live in.. Its the interpretation that is flawed!

There is no use blaming each other for a million things that are going wrong in this world. Why are we trying to mock each others beliefs and practices? And we call ourselves the previleged few..

Ooh la la.. Time to think!

9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how can we take the interpreations of someone who would willingly call himself 'confused' seriously......so confused i'm not gonna let u have the final say.u dont need to participate. i say lets prolong this thought provoking debate to c whether we can better the insults.....ganesha part by anon was funny, so was christ walking on water but i know u can do better.

The instigator(pps,u know who i am)

9:23 PM  
Blogger CoNfUsEd said...

to anon>> Dude! atleast i know i'm confused and i also know where my confusin lies.
So, if u wanna carry on ur "intellectual" argument, pls do so by all means.. and u know what, the problem doesn't lie with people who know they are confused or people who know what they are thinking.. its the majority who don't know where are that create trouble!

anyways..

5:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

now i'm confused

8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, the church has done more service than any other instituion since the creation of man"

Yeah-try the crusades.Try the "spreading of christianity in South America"-where the Incas,Aztecs and other "heathen" were slaughtered by the invading Spanish&Portuguese in the name of Christianity.

Try the "rice bowl conversion in 3rd world countries"-while I appreciate the fact that missionaries give their lives for helping the poor/diseased etc,I am against them mixing religion with social sevice.Building a hospital to treat poor villagers is certainly a service to humanity;so is builing schools,caring for lepers and the like.But this is NOT an exchange.Giving a starving man a bowl of rice,and then saying-"why don't you come to Church tonight and listen to me talk about a man called Jesus" is

Nothing but

1)Forcing your beliefs down disadavantaged person's throat

Its excused by saying "hes free to choose".But does he really have a choice?Is there not an implied threat that these servies will be withdrawn if "he doesn't toe the line".Isn't this coercion?Emotional blackmail?. If you were starving and someone turned up with a bowl of rice and then sugeested you "take a look at christainity" wouldn't you feel compelled to do so...afterall he saved your ass.

The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of missionaries seem to give "spreading their religion" a greater priority than the servie of humanity.

What surprises me is that a significant proportion of the influential people in the catholic church(and cetainly Mr Ratzinger) continue to display a chauvinistic attitude towards other religions while insisting that people desist from violence in the name of religion.(At the world millenium peace conference in 2000,Mr Ratzinger was the only prominent leader who refused to acknowledge the equality of religions).He is aboslutely against relavitism.

So they aren't as bad as the fundamentalist muslims who break out into violence ever so often,citing that their religion allows them to do so.

But tell me...how is saying-"if you are not Christian,you will go to hell after you are dead".or "your religion is satan's work " going to make people feel.I think it was Voltaire who said "Beware of the man who says,follow my religion or else god will punish you.Tomorrow,he will say follow my religion or I will kill you"

Most of the popes in the middle ages were power hungry,murderous bastards. Hail Pope Innocent III!With time they have gotten more refined...slicker,more aware of what is socially acceptable...but deep inside they are still the same.

Now,this isn't a rant against Christians in general.Within,catholics and even within the Vatican there are sensible elements.I belive that the Catholic arcbishop from kerala is really sensible guy-I guess growing up in India-exposure to people of other eligions can make a diffrence as opposed to exposure to Hitler(Mr Ratzinger)No,its the staunch conservatists-Ratzinger,John Paul II that I have a problem with.

2:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if god did not make all men equal, why should all religions be equal.and morevover in the words oh hindus ,hinduism is more a way of life.....like yoga.

4:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wonder wat anonymous(2posts bef me) thinks of hinduism?elaborate your views on hinduism please

4:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, the church has done more service than any other instituion since the creation of man"

the statement is comparative. i do not deny that the church (IN THE PAST) has been responsible for blood shed, nor will i deny its initiative to convert people but it stands tall in comparison to other institutions that dont do a dimes work.

U judge Christianity based on our worst examples the crusades, forced conversions etc. but let me not cite the activities of the bajrang dal, the VHP, the RSS cause I think u can be better represented.
to reiterate i only compared the institutions and not the religions.

"But tell me...how is saying-"if you are not Christian,you will go to hell after you are dead".or "your religion is satan's work " going to make people feel"


lets not be splitting hairs by going into the finer aspects of every religion because we may never arrive at anything of substance.


freebutcomesataprice

8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

freebutcomesataprice:

I dont know who the hell you are but you seem to keep pointing out about VHP and Bajrang Dal.

What is your problem with them? Its pretty obvious that you don't know your stuff. You might cite Gujarat but it was in retaliation to the burning of 58 Hindus on a train.

yes, they want to build a ram temple in ayodhya. so WHAT? Is it wrong to have a temple at the birthplace of Hinduism's most celebrated son? How would you feel if St. Peter's Cathedral was knocked down and a mosque was build there?

8:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prashanth where the hell are you?

8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To freeutcomestaprice

the statement is comparative. i do not deny that the church (IN THE PAST) has been responsible for blood shed, nor will i deny its initiative to convert people but it stands tall in comparison to other institutions that dont do a dimes work

Partly true.Although I feel you have exagerated with the "don't do a dimes work" bit.

My intention was not to compare religions either(although thats what ended up happening),but was to point out that to me it appears that
1) "the service of humanity" bit .. of christians almost always goes hand in hand with proselytization and this appears to be the motivating force for many or most of the "do gooders"

2)That the missionaries almost always have a chauvinistic attitude towards the existing religions in the area where they operate.(well,thats why they want to convert them)

And in conclusion-the "serving people" thing that Christian organisation do-is carried out mostly with a vested interest towards converting the local population to Christianity.There is intrinsic lack of sincerity.Therefore,the interests of the needy population are probably much better served by some other secular organisation(possibly related to the UN)

Again,I reiterate that it wasn't my intention to "bash" christianity.I was trying to make a point about how the "follow my religion or god will punish you thing" can so easily turn into "follow my religion or I will kil you".Also,the comment you reffered to as "splitting hairs" was a valid point -it was an attmept to show how rhetoric from religious leaders/codified religious books can be plain inflammotary ..

If it doesn't goad Christians into using violent means to spread their religion it can only lead to violent backlashes and incite communal hatred.

To the person who asked me what my views on Hinduism where-I think it has the advantage of having the whole "different branches one tree" thing going for it.Even the most extreme of Hindu extremists are forced to acknowledge this-and it basically helps(or should help) keep Hindus tolerant.Disadvantage-Sheer disorganisation!Temples need more funding and a cleanup.But I didn't come here to expand on my take of Hinduism!

.Chanced upon this interesting discussion which sees to have hijacked the orginal....will not be coming back,so don't bother asking me any more questions!

9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how many times have i brought up the vhp and the bajrangdal and it was only a passing reference...i thing hindus and hinduism will be better served if these organisations could utilise their resources towards the betterment of their followers therby precluding 'do -gooders' from commiting 'proselytization'.

i think the whole issue has been blown out of proportion (in keeping with the wishes of 'the instigator') so much so that the subject of prashanth's blog seems irrelevant.

freebutcomesataprice

12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

although anonymous elaborated on the hypocrisy that is christianity, he did not throw light on how hindu institutions are superior to the Church.agreed some or most of christian organisations are involoved in proselytization.agreed they have a history of violence.agreed ratzinger is an exclusivist.

all this just begs the question what have hindu institutions ever done apart from preventing the extinction of your sacred cow.

12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what a load of crap....abt christian institutions having ulterior motives.yeah some fly by night,run of the mill operators profit from converting people but to pigeonhole christians as 'converting do gooders' is ludicrous and this only reflects your negative construct.

also abt ratzinger's exclusivist principles....Hinduism and Islam are two religions that do not treat their subjects with equality. how else can you explain the caste system. you may say that it was man made but it was fostered by the tenets of your religion. so the point is hindus are themselves stratified according to ritual purity and this invaldiates the argument about ratzinger. mend your religion before you start preaching others. trust me anon u have a shit load of problems you need to address other than badly maintained temples.

11:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that the caste system exists in Hinduism helps the christian missionaries a great deal.

1:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hinduism and Islam are two religions that do not treat their subjects with equality. how else can you explain the caste system


Its a well known fact that the "caste system" exists even among converted christians and muslims.I'm talking about people converted a couple of centuries ago....its clearly a social problem.

Saying it was fostered by the tenets of Hinduism is ridiculous.Thats like saying the holocaust was fostered by the tenests of christianity...(the Germans in general and Nazis in particular were devout Christians).

the point is hindus are themselves stratified according to ritual purity and this invaldiates the argument about ratzinger

No it doesn't.Hindus have accepted that this is wrong and are trying to correct it...old Ratzinger on the other hand dreams of the good old days when non christians could be slaughtered and of the great time he had working in a concentration camp.

2:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No it doesn't.Hindus have accepted that this is wrong and are trying to correct it.

say that to all the dalit women who get raped by upper caste bastards.the caste system has shown no sign of disappearing.

Its a well known fact that the "caste system" exists even among converted christians and muslims.I'm talking about people converted a couple of centuries ago....its clearly a social problem.

yeah we have diff comm not along the lines of ritual purity.ex.brahmins are 'forward caste.....tribal hindus are 'backward caste'

old Ratzinger on the other hand dreams of the good old days when non christians could be slaughtered and of the great time he had working in a concentration camp.

yeah like you know him really well.would it be right for me to call sankaracharya a muderous bastard without him being proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt....so its even more wrong on your part to call the pope a nazi based on sketchy third hand information.

5:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah we have diff comm not along the lines of ritual purity.ex.brahmins are 'forward caste.....tribal hindus are 'backward caste'

You are not making sense here.What do you mean "ritual purity".So you are saying that your discrimination is somehow better because it isn't ritualistic?Wow,a more refined form of discrimination.Congrats!

say that to all the dalit women who get raped by upper caste bastards.

you can lead a horse to water....

The church keeps preaching "non violence".Did that stop the genocide against Muslims in Serbia.(Slobadan Milosovic,is the son of a preacher,by the way)

What I'm trying to say is its stupid to hold an entire religion responsible for the actions of a small demographic within it.

About your point about people being treated unequally-its not like that hasn't happened within Christianity. All the slave traders were bible bashers...so were the Afrikaans.And guess what,they even quoted the bible to prove their superiority over blacks.And during this time...the blacks were made christians too.Didn't make a difference-they were still treated like shit.

You might say that this was way back "long ago",as was nazism and perecution of jews(christians were persecuting jews for ages before hitler)...but the villages in India where the caste type discrimination occurs-they are living in the past.

You compare them(perhaps unconsiously) to the largely christian Western countries.Countries where the average citizen is educated and per capita incomes of $25,000 upwards,with good infrastructure.You don't seem to understand that lives in these Indian villages haven't changed much over the years.Certainly,they aren't discussing religion on some internet message board/blog.Therefore,it is so much more difficult to erradicate social evils in regions such as these.

9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The church is funded(largely) by citizens of Western countries were the average per capita income as pointed out-is only around 30 times that of India.(Hinduism exists pretty much only in India)

Maybe,just maybe it is this factor that enables churches to carry out charity,development work etc more efficiently and on a much lmuch larger scale than the Hindu establishment.

As for the comment on Islam-most of the Islamic development work/funding etc comes from Saudi Arabia which is probably the richest Muslim country in the world.(there aren't too many)Even so,it is on a much smaller scale(obviously) than the church.Thats why they don't get too much done either

maraudingbee is clearly a chauvinist who believes in the superiority of his/her religion......and obviously far from intelligent.

10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i do agree its difficult to implement improvement programs in third world country like India.My only point is that in india Christian organisations have taken more steps to eradicate social problems than their hindu counterparts.

U have misinterpretted my views on the caste system. Christians are not classified in any particular order of importance(castes exist but no caste is superior to the other) labelling certain castes as forward and others as backward only evinces the contempt that the religion has towards its followers.u mite say that its only labelling and it does not bear any significance. but the fact is this has gone on for centuries and no religious leader has ever spoken about abolishing this ridiculous system.

The sankaracharya does not touch a non brahmin because they are not pure. we have been witness to such a patently discriminatory act for several years and yet no one has raised any issues. whereas you(not singular) chose to ignore this and prefer to delve into the psyche of the pope and attribute motives to his every action.bear in mind i am not a supporter of the pope...his view on all religions not being equal is ludicrous and anochronistic.

10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i do agree its difficult to implement improvement programs in third world country like India.My only point is that in india Christian organisations have taken more steps to eradicate social problems than their hindu counterparts.

U have misinterpretted my views on the caste system. Christians are not classified in any particular order of importance(castes exist but no caste is superior to the other) labelling certain castes as forward and others as backward only evinces the contempt that the religion has towards its followers.u mite say that its only labelling and it does not bear any significance. but the fact is this has gone on for centuries and no religious leader has ever spoken about abolishing this ridiculous system.

The sankaracharya does not touch a non brahmin because they are not pure. we have been witness to such a patently discriminatory act for several years and yet no one has raised any issues. whereas you(not singular) chose to ignore this and prefer to delve into the psyche of the pope and attribute motives to his every action.bear in mind i am not a supporter of the pope...his view on all religions not being equal is ludicrous and anochronistic.

10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All I can say is that Prashanth has some very well informed readers. I bet he is sitting somewhere not even planning to post for a long time cause he is bloody loving this.

12:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i do agree its difficult to implement improvement programs in third world country like India.My only point is that in india Christian organisations have taken more steps to eradicate social problems than their hindu counterparts.

yes,but the christian organisations in India get a lot of there resources/funding from the West.No-they haven't taken more steps to eradicate social problems...they have been more effective at doing so because of the reason I mentioned above.


"U have misinterpretted my views on the caste system. Christians are not classified in any particular order of importance(castes exist but no caste is superior to the other) labelling certain castes as forward and others as backward only evinces the contempt that the religion has towards its followers.u mite say that its only labelling and it does not bear any significance. but the fact is this has gone on for centuries and no religious leader has ever spoken about abolishing this ridiculous system."

Absolute Bullshit.Not only is your argument weak but most 10 year olds are better informed than you.

"Christians are not classified in any particular order of importance(castes exist but no caste is superior to the other)"

Really,then why do the castes exist?There are so many reports in newspapers of Dalit Christians being discriminated against by the "foward caste christian community".Why is this so?I thought all castes within christianity are considered equal?They just exist for fun,right?

" labelling certain castes as forward and others as backward only evinces the contempt that the religion has towards its followers"


The quoted statement of yours only shows that in additon to being a bigot you are also poorly informed

Actually,castes were only labelled as "foward" and "backward" by the Indian government,ostensibly as means for facilitating "affirmative action"- this system has only been used by unscruplous politicians to reamain in power and has resulted in further polarisation of communities.

"but the fact is this has gone on for centuries and no religious leader has ever spoken about abolishing this ridiculous system.

"
ok-how about Swami Vivekananda,Dayanand Saraswathi,Raja Ram Mohan Roy,Ramakrishna...What do you think of the RSS?The Hindu Mahasabha.

Right Wing chauvinist Hindu organisations,right?Well,maybe so but they have campaigned against the caste system since the 1920s.


"The sankaracharya does not touch a non brahmin because they are not pure. we have been witness to such a patently discriminatory act for several years and yet no one has raised any issues"

No one has raised issues is bullshit!

He isn't the only one-pontiffs in religions other than Hindusim such as Christianity and Islam also go strictly by what

1)Their grandfther's idea of propriety was

And Justify that by quoting some example,precedent or obscure passage from scripture


"whereas you(not singular) chose to ignore this and prefer to delve into the psyche of the pope and attribute motives to his every action"

I wasn't attempting to attribute motives to his every action.
I was saying that

1) he seems very aggressive about "new recruits" into Christianity as other Christian missionaries are.as you yourself observed-he needs to catch up with todays world.

2)That priorities of a lot of "do gooders" will be mixed up as a result.

3)That proselytization and zealous attempts to convert a population will eventually lead to violence-either as a backlash;or the converters getting a little too carried away(we have seen that happen in the past)

Conversions and declarations of ones own religion as "superior-or one preffered by good" is an act of aggression.

3:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really,then why do the castes exist?There are so many reports in newspapers of Dalit Christians being discriminated against by the "foward caste christian community".Why is this so?I thought all castes within christianity are considered equal?They just exist for fun,right?


u have already mentioned the reasons behind classification.therefore the reasons for several castes in christianity is merely a topical thing(not present in the west) because the bible in no uncertain terms states that all christins are equal whereas your religious scriptures implicitly suggest a hierarchy in the hindu society.
Brahman, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras


ok-how about Swami Vivekananda,Dayanand Saraswathi,Raja Ram Mohan Roy,Ramakrishna...What do you think of the RSS?The Hindu Mahasabha.

yea right.the dalits are revelling in the fruits of their labour.....ignorance?oh yes.

The quoted statement of yours only shows that in additon to being a bigot you are also poorly informed.

its so typical of hindus to dislay aggression from the safety of a bunker.y dont u learn something from muslims.they seem to be pounding your ass at every given opportunity. to which my hindu comrades say'damn the pope, hes such a tyrant'.misplaced aggression?i think so.

5:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"
u have already mentioned the reasons behind classification.therefore the reasons for several castes in christianity is merely a topical thing(not present in the west) because the bible in no uncertain terms states that all christins are equal whereas your religious scriptures implicitly suggest a hierarchy in the hindu society.
Brahman, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras"

It is possible to search the scriptures and come up with an excuse for almost anything.Allow me to point out that the Bible hasn't exactly promoted non discrimination either;in fact

slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves

some christians attempt to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.

There-thats what your scriptures say about slavery.Also,I notice you didn't elaborate on why Dalit christians are discriminated against by "foward caste christians".


"its so typical of hindus to dislay aggression from the safety of a bunker.y dont u learn something from muslims.they seem to be pounding your ass at every given opportunity. to which my hindu comrades say'damn the pope, hes such a tyrant'.misplaced aggression?i think so. "

I don't recall any sign of aggression on my part and by others.I went through the posts and there have hardly been any posts bashing Christians/Christianity.The pope has come under criticism and various activities of the church have been criticised.

You are taking this criticism as

1)An attack on Christians in general
2)A personal affront

And have retaliated with derogatory comments about Hindus in general.I called you a bigot...well,you were certainly talking like one.

To get back to your point earlier...No I don;t think its that common for Hindus to be aggressive from the safety of a bunker.

And yes-I have a miilion things to say about Islamic clergy as well,there are also some criticism s of the Hindu leadership-and I acknowledge that you raised some valid points.

On another note,you would like us to" learn something from the fundamentalist Muslims" won't you?You would love it if we went around crying out "Jihad,Jihad","lets kill so and so" at the drop of a hat,then you could smugly say-"look,both the Muslims and the Hindus are barbarians.only interested in killing".
I think that statement you made stemms from your frustration...your inability to argue.

6:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is possible to search the scriptures and come up with an excuse for almost anything.Allow me to point out that the Bible hasn't exactly promoted non discrimination either.

'an excuse'.you really cannot defend the fact that the gita promotes casteism. you are here only to score points,and not with any intent to make cogent arguments. by labelling my view an excuse you have only skirted the issue.

"slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves"


u touched on a grey area . slavery may not be condemned by the bible but it is important u understand how slavery is defined by the bible.

What many people don’t understand is that slavery in the Bible times is completely different from the slavery that was practiced in the United States in the 1700’s and 1800’s. The slavery in the Bible was not based on race at all. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, even politicians were slaves of someone else for one reason or another. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.

it was a prevalent practice during those times and still continues in different forms ;only the appellation has been refined.

I never take any of the arguments personally inspite of grave provocations from your side.


I think that statement you made stemms from your frustration...your inability to argue.

i have no problem in arguing brother/sister.im just PO'd by
1)your skewed views
2)being called a bigot for defending my views

:-)

i think it willl be refreshing to have non-brahmin hindus expressing their views on this issue because many hindus feel that the gita was scripted with the iyer/iyengar in mind.and hinduism in general is lopsided in favor of brahmins.

8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

50....good going prashanth. you know which button to press when in need of visitors.

8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i cannot believe how mohammed sold islam to the world,....a package where violence is condoned, multiple marriages are not a violation`and women are secondary.islam anyone?

9:16 AM  
Blogger P said...

I bet he is sitting somewhere not even planning to post for a long time cause he is bloody loving this---

thats unfair man. I have been away and all I can say is that its absolutely incredible that this topic has absolutely been hijacked. It definitely is irritating that almost 90% of posts here are anonymous! Say it loud, say it proud!

9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"
'an excuse'.you really cannot defend the fact that the gita promotes casteism. you are here only to score points,and not with any intent to make cogent arguments. by labelling my view an excuse you have only skirted the issue."

ok-quoting from a translation of the Gita

Bhagavad-gita (4.13) Lord Krishna says, "According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me." Then He continues, "Brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras are distinguished by their qualities of work in accordance with the modes of nature." (Bg.18.41) Here we can see that there is no mention of birth as a determining factor for one's varna or classification. They are ascertained by their qualities of work. Furthermore, "By following his qualities of work, every man can become perfect. . . By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all-pervading, man can, in the performance of his own duty [or occupation], attain perfection." (Bg.18.45-6)


I haevn't skirted the issue.yes,there is another part of the Gita which appears to contradict this and promote casteism,and in other scriptures there are parts which can be used to argue bith for and aginst.Which means that basically,its left to interpretation...

And speaking of skirting the issue-Its you who can't defend the fact that dalit christians are discriminated against by "foward cast christians".You have consistently skirted that issue.

Oh and as for slavery-what you said is an excuse thats often used by christians everywhere.Heres quoting from the bible

Leviticus 25:44-46 states: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have ‹ you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen [brother], the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Sorry-but I don't see any mention of volunteeers for slavery here.And for the annon who foolowed wth a comment on Muslims...it doesn't seem that they are alone in promoting violence towards "infidels".Christians would seem right up there too(if you go by their scriptures)


"I have no problem in arguing brother/sister.im just PO'd by
1)your skewed views
2)being called a bigot for defending my views"


"i think it willl be refreshing to have non-brahmin hindus expressing their views on this issue because many hindus feel that the gita was scripted with the iyer/iyengar in mind.and hinduism in general is lopsided in favor of brahmins"

i am a non brahmin Hindu-there you have my views.And just for the record-what are you:catholic,Anglican,Lutheran?

9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"'an excuse'.you really cannot defend the fact that the gita promotes casteism. you are here only to score points,and not with any intent to make cogent arguments. by labelling my view an excuse you have only skirted the issue.""

You don't seem to be making a cogent argument either.I was.I'm not now because the discussion degenerated into a stupid argument on "why my religion is superior to yours".Thanks to you.

I was not referring to your view as an excuse previously.I was referring to

1)The justification some Hindus used for the caste system

2)And more generally that things like slavery,violence towards people of other religions can be justified if an effort is made to do so.there are numerous examples from every religion

Christians taking to the crusades,justifying slavery,Jihad with Muslims...the list is long

12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THE FOUR ORDERS OF HUMAN BEINGS
From The Mahabharata- Santi Parva
Section CLXXXVIII.

Brigu said, "..... (The Creator created) human beings with their four divisions, viz., Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras. The complexion the Brahmanas obtained was white; that which the Kshatriyas obtained was red; that which the Vaisyas got was yellow; and that which was given to the Sudras was black."
What is intended to be said is that the Brahmanas had the attribute of Goodness (Sattwa); the second order had the attribute of Passion (Rajas); the third got a mixture of the two, i.e., both goodness and passion (Sattwa and Rajas); while the lowest order got the remaining attribute, viz., Darkness (Tamas).].


now i feel hinduism reeks of racism too.

Its you who can't defend the fact that dalit christians are discriminated against by "foward cast christians".

u keep adverting to this point when i have already addressed it.my point is hinduism promotes casteism explicitly in its scriptures.so any christian discriminated against is protected by the bible for it is a proponent of equality.remember noone is born a slave,it's a product of economic classification just like servants(refined usage of slaves).but people are born sudras now that constitutes egregious discrimination .


it's tough for me to believe that you are a non brahmin.let me just say i m not willing to buy that.



for the record i'm a catholic. what abt u?who do you worship?

Christians taking to the crusades,justifying slavery,Jihad with Muslims...the list is long.

10:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THE FOUR ORDERS OF HUMAN BEINGS
From The Mahabharata- Santi Parva
Section CLXXXVIII.

Brigu said, "..... (The Creator created) human beings with their four divisions, viz., Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras. The complexion the Brahmanas obtained was white; that which the Kshatriyas obtained was red; that which the Vaisyas got was yellow; and that which was given to the Sudras was black."
What is intended to be said is that the Brahmanas had the attribute of Goodness (Sattwa); the second order had the attribute of Passion (Rajas); the third got a mixture of the two, i.e., both goodness and passion (Sattwa and Rajas); while the lowest order got the remaining attribute, viz., Darkness (Tamas).].


now i feel hinduism reeks of racism too.

How so?So there were the fair skinned ones,the dark skinned ones,the red skinned ones and the yellow ones...and then?

The red skinned ones went off to North America and started hunting buffalo.They are known as Red Indians.The yellows went off to China and invented gunpowder.

Yeah right.Couldn't you come up with anything better?Even a 10 year old would realise that the colours attributed to different groups wern't intended to be taken literally.I assume you want to say that the Brahmins,Kshatriyas and other high castes were fair skinned oppressors of an indigenous dark skinned people.

Well,actually Krishna is depicted everywhere is dark skinned.So is Arjun( a kshatriya),so is Drupadi.It would appear that "dark was beautiful" in the vedic age unlike present times where "fair is lovely".But thats what 200+ years of colonial rule can do to the psyche of a country.

Here is a more lucid explanation of the passage you quoted.

The rising sun, the grandest of all, was red, and this was the colour given to the ruling kshatriyas. Brahmans were signified by the colour white because that was supposed to be the colour of the sun at noon. Vaishyas were yellow because that is the colour the sun took in the East, and finally sudras were blue, for that was the hue of the setting sun. To extrapolate racial segregation from factual material of this order is indeed far-fetched.

It will then have to be admitted that even the Vedas concede that kshatriyas are superior to brahmans as they represent the rising sun. Further, from where does the colour yellow get any material substantiation? Why have yellow or red not received any attention from those who argue in favour of the racial origins of caste? Why are many of us committed to a two race theory and not a four race one? Quite clearly the thesis that caste originated from race is flawed as it is based on flimsy evidence.


"so any christian discriminated against is protected by the bible for it is a proponent of equality.remember noone is born a slave,it's a product of economic classification just like servants(refined usage of slaves)"

Well,what you said is debatable...about assrance of equality.But -even if it where true

"Leviticus 25:44-46 states: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have ‹ you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. "

I guess you are justified in making slaves of non-christians,pagans.Of killing them and treating them like dirt.Congrats!



"t's tough for me to believe that you are a non brahmin.let me just say i m not willing to buy that."

Well,thats your problem.I am a Baniya by the way.

2:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Even a 10 year old would realise that the colours attributed to different groups wern't intended to be taken literally"


lol!!!!y this obsession with 10 year olds yar.

dont say i talk like a 10 year old because u wouldn't have returned had it been the case.

I guess you are justified in making slaves of non-christians,pagans.Of killing them and treating them like dirt.Congrats!

yeah.u always resort to sarcasm to emphasise a point but my subtle attempt at sarcasm seems to have gone completely unnoticed. my insinuation that the gita has racial connotations were only to emphasise the fact that when u dissect material especially from scriptures they can be subject to several interpretations.

4:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" but my subtle attempt at sarcasm seems to have gone completely unnoticed. my insinuation that the gita has racial connotations were only to emphasise the fact that when u dissect material especially from scriptures they can be subject to several interpretations'

lol.This is what you said
"now i feel hinduism reeks of racism too'

Thats hardly an insinuation is it?Subtle?

Speaking of obsession with 10 year olds-I'm sure Michael Jackson would be ecstatic if you were on the prosecution!(By the way,you were setting yourself up with that 10 year old remark for a joke about catholic priests. :)

Anyway,coming back to point-
" my insinuation that the gita has racial connotations were only to emphasise the fact that when u dissect material especially from scriptures they can be subject to several interpretations'"

Isn't that EXACTLY what I said earlier.I went further to state that it can be used and has been to condone a whole lot of social evils.And this is where you said that I called your "view" an excuse,was skirting the issue,was not interested in the argument and was only here to score "points".

Anyhow,its been an interesting debate.I might have pissed you of a bit,but I enjoyed the argument and was amused by some of the things you said.

Cheerio

6:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ditto, keep visiting the blog! u yanked the humor chain as well.


ciao

6:23 AM  
Blogger Sharad said...

BOO HOO :( - why don't I get so many comments on my blog ?

11:57 AM  
Blogger P said...

Lol!

1:52 AM  
Blogger P said...

If only I knew who was posting:)

1:52 AM  
Blogger Vc said...

Hey we want more !!!! Prashanth we give you 2 days to get them back or else...

2:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yea, what happened to the venom spewing dudes?

a bewildered freebutcomesataprice

4:09 AM  
Blogger P said...

hey! I will be back. Let me get the system in order first!

8:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home