Hindu terrorism is an issue in India, as is occasional Christian terrorism.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Hindu terrorism is an issue in India, as is occasional Christian terrorism.
{ 21 comments }
That is trajic.
I miss going to Mass. I’ve been without a car for seven months. I’m glad you linked this Catholic Online. Now I have more to read ;-)
I feel little sympathy for slain missionaries working at stealing souls from followers of other faiths. Just as I would like the USA to remain a prodominently christian land, so too do I understand the Hindus, Moslems and other faiths feel about christian missionaries encroaching in their countries.
India is not the United States. The hindu religion is the heart and soul of their culture. I suspect most Hindu’s have all they can do to swallow the presence of a large number of Moslems in their country. But their relations with islam go back a thousand years. What they consider the social nuisance and cultural threat of Christianity is relatively new, with the coming of the Portuguese, French and British in the past 500 years.
So confine your christian missioneering to places where the native populace  won’t burn you to death for your presumptive insolence.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold,
I think I have a notoriously deaf ear when it comes to matters of faith, but you’ve surpassed even me here. First off, one man’s stealing is another man’s saving would be one obvious response. But second, unless the conversion was at the point of a sword, there’s never any good reason to slay someone for the simple act of evangelism.
I propose a new term: Hindofascists.
India is a land of multiple major religions, with millions of Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and other non-Hindu faiths.
If you were to read the article carefully, Arnold, you’ll see that even though the Bible clearly and unequivocally instructs Christians to seek converts, that’s not what they were doing here. Those murdering bastards burned a little girl to death. A little girl in an orphanage, whose parents had abandoned her. The church was busy trying to find food, clothing, and shelter for her, not to convert her. Yeesh.
Zach,
Have you ever stopped to consider how enraging it must be to people of one culture to have someone from another culture coming among them and either preaching their religion, or just living it?
One of the most outstanding examples I can find was neither in India nor even in the islamic Middle East.
Right here in the USA, for example, the "Pukes" — as Mormons 162 years ago referred to the typical protestant Christians among whom they lived in the recently settled villages along the upper Mississippi river — rioted, killed them, and stole or burned their property in order to drive them out of town.
Which was how the great migration of the Latter Day Saints came about. Brigham Young, their leader, determined to march "Israel" — as the Mormons thought of themselves — on an exodus westward and straight out of the USA and into then Mexican-controlled Utah.Â
Then, too, their was the reaction of the governing classes of the Roman Empire toward Christianity itself, which culminated in the great persecution and mass terror against them in the early 4th century.
And not to be forgotten is the all but endless degradation of the Jews of nearly all lands in Europe that were under the thumb of the Roman Catholic Church. That began almost from the moment Catholicism came into official power in the 4th century, right up to the time when the pope himself sanctioned officials of the Holy Inquisition of the Papal State in 1858 to kidnap a young jewish child, Edgardo Mortara, and educate him to be a catholic priest, tearing him away from his jewish parents for the rest of his life. Â
(He died in March 1940, at a convent in Belgium, two months ahead of the nazi german conquest that no doubt would have resulted in his murder in Auschwitz or one of the other mass murder factories, Catholic Church or no Catholic Church; sort of like a male version of Sister Edith Stein, who suffered just that fate.)
Interfaith understanding, good will, or just plain tolerance? Tell me another fairy tale. I’m a collector of vignettes of just how shitty people of just about any religious faith are to one another or to those outside their circle of belief. Almost as satisfying as collecting antique rangefinder cameras.Â
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Religious intolerance is indeed a problem and long has been. With Christians murdering each other being just as common as any other form of religious persecution.
However, it is also quite common for faiths to share a community with little to no friction. The First Amendment of the United States was created by and large by the fundamentalist Baptists (of the same stripe as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson today) who wished to avoid conflicts with the then-dominant Episcopalians of that era. George Washington made a point as President of visiting his young nation’s largest synagogue, and addressing the Jews there to assure them that America was not founded as a s0-called Christian Nation, and emphasized their welcomeness here. The anti-Trinitarian faith of his Vice President and successor, John Adams, was scandalous heresy to most of his fellow Christians, but in point of fact his tiny religious movement gave us some of our most respected Presidents.
Although religious conflicts do arise, they do not necessarily do so. Within the borders of modern-day Israel (not including Palestine), Christian churches of multiple stripes operate unmolested alongside mosques and synagogues. In India, there is frequent conflict between Muslims and Hindus, but usually only along the border with Pakistan or in the disputed territory of Kashmir. India only a few years ago elected a Muslim as their President, who by all accounts served competently and well, with very little hubbub over his Muslim-ness in the predominantly Hindu nation. Sikhism, which is neither Muslim nor Hindu, also thrives in that enormous nation. There have also been Christians, Thomist Christians of the Indian Orthodox Church (also known as Malankara), operating continuously in India since about the year 52 (yes, fifty-two). Since the coming of the British, Episcopalian and Roman Catholics have also been operant there (that is, for over a century now).
India’s Hindus have developed a radical fringe that seeks to purge all these non-Hindu elements from India. Most Hindus, from what I can tell, hate and are mortified by their actions.
For God’s sake, they burned a child in an orphanage alive Arnold. A little girl. Who had been tossed away for the sin of being a girl. In an orphanage set up by a religion that sees helping such children as mandatory. I just don’t know what else to say.
For the curious, here is a good article on the Indian Christians. Having been in continuous operation in India for over 1,950 years, it is very hard to see these folks as foreign to India. Theologically, they are identical to the Roman Catholics in about 99% of all issues. By comparison, the Roman Catholics have only been in India for a few centuries so far as I know, but to the average non-Christian in that area I doubt they’d seem all that different anyway.
Alright, Dean.
The angels of my better nature have taken charge of my fingers this fine, cloudless and temeratre Sunday early afternoon in September. So I’m sorry that child lost her life to religious hatred and mindless but willful violence in a faraway land and an even more distant culture.
Just remember that religious intolerance of the majority in any culture is never far from the surface.
So let us just agree that religious missionaries attempting to spread their message and dogma need to do so in the most circumspect of manner.
Â
Because the victim of some religious hatred who their presence may excite a deranged mob and result in the death of innocent people, including children.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I don’t see how opening hospitals and orphanages so qualifies, Arnold, but that’s just me.
I only just noticed Aziz’s comment was in the spam filter and just now released it. To respond to it: it’s a fine term so far as I’m concerned. It’s pretty clear that Hindu extremists in India are conducting terrorism against Christians, Muslims, and anyone else who threatens their "Hindu nationalism," and that their goal can rightly be called a form of fascism. A standard definition for fascism is:
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
…at least according to the American Heritage dictionary. It’s pretty clear these people have a "Hindu uber alles" philosophy. And I have little doubt (although I do not know for sure) that at least some of them embrace the caste system.
Are there Christofascists? Well there certainly have been in the past. Do they exist now? Well there are certainly Christian terrorists with goals that look fascist to some of us. Although it would be wrong to simply portray all nutjob extremist Christians that way, since many are merely non-violent and insular.
"These people", as you refer to them, are followers of Hindutva, which, I am tolds, translates more or less to Hinduism. It is a national movement of the great Hindu nation.
Why "great"? Because with more or less one billion of them, the approach the worldwide number of all Islam. And because Hinduism dominates India. And because India itself will emerge one day as a superpower. And because India, along with Russia, China and Japan, will one day dominate not only southern Asia, but Eurasia clear into eastern Europe.
So don’t just idly brush them off as a bunch of thugs.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
If this is an example of Hindufascism, then it follows that Dean and Aziz are being Hinduphobic. Why are you deliberately hurting Hindu feelings?
Don’t you know that when you criticize Hindu extremists, you’re alienating Hindu moderates, possibly forcing them into a life of terrorism and/or anti-Americanism?
Somebody ought to set up a Hindu-phobia watch site…
Mary,
maybe next time you can take it upon yourself to respond to an argument someone actually made.
Mary, wouldn’t you be somewhat disturbed if someone responded snarkily as you did, to an incident where a little jewish girl was murdered by an Islamist thug?
At some point we need to stop looking for the cheap shot and scoring points, and actually address the problem.
In my case, my comment is meant to illustrate the ridulousness of the term "X-fascist" when the only term that is needed is "fascist". Calling a murderous thug an Islamofascist or a Hindufascist only gives that thug religious legitimacy, and insults the mainstream of a billion non-facist adherents to these faiths.
Aziz – I wasn’t responding to the article, I was responding to your statement "I propose a new term: Hindofascists." – and to the post you linked to, where you also propose the use of the term "Hindofascists"
..and, of course, to Deans approval of the term.
If you were proposing the use of the term Hindofascist in an ironic, or (some might say snarky) way, then it’s hardly fair to be complaining about the addition of irony (or snark) to the thread.
Aziz – I wasn’t responding to the article, I was responding to your comment (and to Dean’s approval of the comment) – "I propose a new term: Hindofascists."
If you meant this in an ironic (or, some might say, snarky) way, then criticizing others for the use of irony and/or snark in this thread would hardly be appropriate.
Arnold: India has about 300,000,000 Muslims–i.e. there are possibly more Muslims in that country than the total population of the United States. Also, Hinduism is an even more fractured religion than either Christianity or Islam, with Hindus frequently murdering each other over this or that perceived injustice or theological difference. Some are even monotheists, whereas others are undeniably polytheists.
India also has tens of millions of Sikhs; Sikhism was founded in India. It also has tens of millions of Christians, who have had a constant existence in India for over 1,900 years.
Thus I see little justification for the claim that they are a "hindu nation." I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I don’t see it that way–at least, not the way I perceive you as portraying it. That would require the people of India to generally identify more with Hinduism than their native languages (dozens are spoken within Indian borders), their ethnicity, or anything else. That would be atypical for Hindus. If anything, all the Hindus I have known tend to have an extremely laid back, almost Unitarian Universalist, philosophy. At least when it comes to faith. A lot of them even go ahead and add figures like Jesus and Muhammed to their list of revered Gods, which is somewhat blasphemous to both other faiths (since both are monotheists and the Muslims don’t revere Muhammed as a God), but the average Hindu seems to just shrug and go with the flow.
I would agree with you that India is a rising power that may reach superpower status by the end of this century. I just don’t see Hinduism as the primary driving force of that.
Mary: Snark is fine by me, but, I can only say I find this puzzling. I’ve never said that criticism of Muslims equates to Islamophobia; what counts as Islamophobia is drawing vast sweeping conclusions about an enormous faith that involves over a billion people speaking dozens of languages found in hundreds of countries, based purely on extremist interpretations of the Koran or ridiculous generalizations about the faith. I don’t think Aziz’s view of that issue in particular is any different from my own. But maybe I’ve missed something. I don’t hold all Christians, or even most Protestants, accountable for the KKK; I’d consider that Christophobic, as I did even a few years ago when I was a professing atheist but an idiot blogger (who I won’t name) came out and said the Gospel is clearly anti-semitic and Christians need to expunge the Bible and repudiate those parts of it that Jews have issues with. Which was garbage, then and now.
Aziz,
I’ll accept your term, and disagree with your conclusion. When Muslims murder in service to their twisted view of Islam, some people will indict all of Islam, as you know all too well. And some larger number won’t advance that argument themselves, but are persuadable by that. Arguing "They’re not Muslims, they’re fascists" or "They’re not following true Islam, they’re just fascists using Islam for their own ends" is correct and persuasive to some chunk of the populace; but in my experience, a lot of people won’t understand that. The fascists say they’re Muslims, so people believe them.
Given that, then, I see "Islamofascist" as a useful term to break their conceptual logjam. It acknowledges the claim to Islam, while introducing the idea that "They’re not representative of all Muslims, they’re Muslims who’re fascists as well." I understand why you dislike the term; but honestly, I think it’s a term that helps the casual observer to not lump peaceful Muslims in with the fascists. That’s a step along the way to getting them to condemn the fascism, not Islam.
Of course, as we’ve seen, some people aren’t persuadable no matter what the evidence or the argument. Since those people will stick with the label "Islam", the label "Islamofascism" helps to distinguish their arguments from more rational arguments.
Dean – you say: "I’ve never said that criticism of Muslims equates to Islamophobia"
I never said that you did say that (although my "double" comments may have been confusing – sorry about that, it might be a wordpress/firefox glitch).
I implied that you and Aziz tended to see criticism of "Islamofascist" groups, organizations that support or are supported by extremists or terrorists (for example, the Muslim Brotherhood or CAIR)Â as criticism of all Muslims.
Since the majority of Muslims don’t support these groups, and since most of the victims of terrorism have been Muslims, it’s not clear why anyone would think Muslims would be offended by criticism of fascist groups, Islamo or otherwise.
Martin, I agree in principle with your take, because I am not personally offended by the term Islamofascism. But thats because I tend to think strategically instead of defensively. The average muslim sees the term and asks,, reasonably, why are these fascists being singled out to association with us? Why is Hindufascism, to take an example, so obviously a ludicrously irrelevant construction? Or Christofascists to descrbe skinheads?
Strategically, it benefits us in our long term goal of delegitimizing terrorism, to avoid the term, because it grants the violent fanatics the legitimacy of the Islamic label and their own claims of religious sanction for their actions. I hope you can appreciate why the term Islamofascism, quite apart from peaceful muslims’ opinions on the matter, is something of a PR coup for the fanatics.
I think I answered Mary in the above as well.
Comments on this entry are closed.